I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.. 

>$W« - |oprisW|fo 



^/*ef ma 



*— 



i 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ! 



\ i» ■* 



LETTE 




THOS. A. MORRIS, D.D., 

Senior Bishop of the M. E. Church. 

BY 

JAMES M. MATHES, V. D. M., 

Editor of the Christian Record, and Author of the " West- 
em Preacher" and other works. 



M On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades 
shall not prevail against it."— Christ. 



FOURTH EDITION, ENLARGED AND IMPROVED. 



BEDFORD, INDIANA. 

1871. 



lot coiio«« a, | 






Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1871, by 

J. M. MATHES, 
ill the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, 



INDIANAPOLIS PRINTIKG AND PUBLISHING HOUSE. 

J. M. Tilford, Preset. 



PEEFACE. 



The first ten of the following series of Letters were 
published in the " Christian Record," commencing in 
November, 1859. In this way they were widely circu- 
lated and extensively read by the Christian brother- 
hood, and others who felt an interest in the important 
issues discussed. When we reached the tenth number 
in the series, we became satisfied that we would have 
to place them in tract or book form for general circula- 
tion. The voice of the brotherhood, as conveyed to 
us in numerous letters, seemed to demand this; and 
we yielded to the wishes of many brethren and friends. 

These Letters as published in the " Record " pro- 
duced quite a sensation upon some of the friends and 
admirers of Bishop Morris. We heard of one case, 
where a member of the M. E. Church borrowed the 
"Record" containing one of these letters, and when 
he had read it, he became so much excited that he 
threw it into the fire, in order to destroy the letter! 

But this was an exceptional case. We have abun 
dant evidence that many were induced, by reading 
these Letters, to search the Scriptures, and were led 
to embrace the truth. We have therefore added sev- 
eral new letters to the series, and revised the ten that 
appeared in the " Record," and now offer them to the 
public in this little volume, which is cheap and within 
the reach of all. 



IV PREFACE. 

Let no one throw it aside as unprofitable, because 
it is controversial. It is true, we have called in ques- 
tion many of the positions taken by the good Bishop, 
and fully sustained our objections, by the admissions 
of the most learned and able men in the M. E. Church 
and by Scripture testimony; but in doing so we have 
abused no one — we have always endeavored to dis- 
tinguish between the system and the honest people 
who embrace it. We have used hard arguments and 
pleasant words, and trust that we have manifested the 
Christian spirit. 

Our object has not been to wound the feelings of 
any one, but to arouse them to search the Scriptures. 
We love the good and honest of all denominations, 
and desire to see all united upon the " one founda- 
tion " according to the prayer of the divine Savior. 
Such union can not be consummated until sectarian- 
ism is made to give place to Christianity. Men must 
be brought to love God and the Bible more than party, 
before they will consent to such a union. 

If these Letters should prove a means, by the bless- 
ing of God, of leading any to a candid investigation of 
the great issues involved, in the light of the word of 
God, we shall be fully satisfied that our labor has not 
been in vain. The blessing of God attend all who de- 
Sire to know the truth! THE AUTHOR. 



CONTENTS. 



LETTER I. 



Under what circumstances we became acquainted 
with the Bishop— No Sectarian names in the 
Primitive Church— Division is carnality — Are 
Methodists one with the other sects ? 9 

LETTER II. 

The true rule of faith — Bishop Morris says, rc Stick 
to it for life " — Paul and Apollos changed, so 
did Martin Luther—The " Iron Bedstead.". . 17 

LETTER III. 

Government needed in the Church — What sort of 
Government shall we have, Human or Di- 
vine? — Prudential Rules — Branches of the 
Church 28 

LETTER IV. 

The Government of the M. E. Church peculiar — 
Result of Experience — It is an Experiment, 
and therefore a human institution — Pruden- 
tial Rules brought to the test 38 



VI CONTENTS. 

LETTER V. 
The Starting Point— Call to the Ministry—No 
Methodism in the days of the Apostles — 
Modern Pretenders Tried — Personal Applica 
tion of Redemption — Total Depravity — Paul 
on the witness stand 48 

LETTER VI. 
The Little Organization — What Code shall they 
adopt? — Let God do his own work — The 
Bible a Perfect Code— Standard of Faith — 
The name Christian — Unconverted Element 
in the M. E. Church 61 

LETTER VII. 
Probationary Membership not of God, but of the 
Fathers — God's plan of membership more sim- 
ple — Baptism — Inskip's Testimony— Nk> com- 
mand for, or Example of Infant Baptism in the 
New Testament 73 

LETTER VIII. 
Bill of Rights in the M. E. Church— Twenty Mil- 
lions of Property — Each Member's Interest 
about $20 — -Deeds to Church Property — In- 
fancy of Methodism 86 

LETTER IX. 
Three Agents between the Pastor and his flock — 
Rise of Methodism — John Wesley an uncon- 
verted Methodist Preacher for ten years — 
Class Meetings — Captain Foy — The Bishop's 
Cabinet— The Divine Model 98 



rONTENTS. Vll 

LETTER X. 

Christian Bishops compared with Methodist Bish- 
ops— Authority of Methodist Bishops— No 
-f-^uj i n Choosing the Pastors— Mr. Wesley 
not a Bishop— Wesley's Letter to Francis 
Asbury Ill 

LETTER XI. 

Paul's Experience Compared with the Experience 
of Methodist Bishops — Paul's Commission 
Compared with theirs — Paul Debated with 
his Opponents, Methodist Bishops never 
do — General Conference — Two Checks Upon 
Methodist Preachers 123 



F A. KT IX. 

EKht REASONS FOR NOT BEING A METHODIST. 

LETTER XII. 

The Metholist Church not once named in the 
New Te.tament — Nothing in a Name — Anec- 
dote of B^hop Roberts — The Wife wears the 
name of ^er Husband— The name " Chris- 
tian" givei by Divine Authority 136 



Vlll CONTENTS. 

LETTER XIII. 

Polity of the M. E. Church unscriptural— The 
Discipline and Prudential Rules drawn from 
the Bible— Experience and Observe-* — 
Inskip's Admission that Mecnodism is a 
Human Institution — Ninth Article — Infant 
Sprinkling not from Heaven but of Men — 
Household Baptism 150 

LETTER XIV. 

• 

Methodists receive .Unconverted persons into the 
Church — Basis of Membership in the M. E. 
Church, Flesh and Blood, and not Faith and 
Spirit— Ordinary Generation, and not Regen- 
eration — Bishop Waugh's Statement — Con- 
ditions of Membership in the Church of 
Christ 16? 

LETTER XV. 

The Mourning Bench or Anxious Seat — No such 
Institution in the Church of Christ, nor in tb? 
M. E. Church for many years after its rise — 
The Anxious Seat not of Heaven but of 
Rome — Baptist Testimony 173 



LETTER XYI. 



/. 



Episcopacy more fully considered — Whence came 
Methodist Bishops?— Methodist E/iscopacy 
a Fraud upon American Methodists — Coke 
and Asbury were Pretenders. 183 



LETTERS TO BISHOP MORRIS. 



LET TEH I. 

Introductory — Under -what circumstances we became 
acquainted with him — Read his book with interest — 
Buy the Discipline every four years — The Bishop's 
mature thoughts — The text very appropriate — One 
in spirit, though we may differ in speculative theol- 
ogy, forms of discipline, etc. — No sectarian or party 
names in the primitive church — Dr. Morris mis- 
taken — The primitive Christians were all one — 
Dr. M. teaches that division is not incompatible 
with unity — Paul teaches that division among Chris- 
tians is carnal — Are the Methodists one in heart with 
the other sects? — Calvin and Servetus differed in 
"speculative theology " — Were they one in heart? 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D.: 

My Dear Sir — A short time ago I saw it 
announced in your church organs, that a book 
was in press written by you, being a discourse 
delivered by you before the North Indiana and 
Pittsburg Conferences, both of which took ac- 
tion, requesting its publication; and entitled, 

U A Discourse on Methodist Church Polity. 
By T. A. Morris, D. D., senior Bishop of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church." 

1 determined to procure the work as soon as 



10 LETTERS TO 

it came out; and I have been fortunate enough 
to succeed. I was very anxious to read your 
book, from the fact that I have long known you 
by reputation, and I was introduced to you, and 
spent a very pleasant afternoon with you and 
other friends, at the house of our mutual friend, 
Hon, Joseph A. Wright, then Governor of the 
State of Indiana. This I think was in the win- 
ter of 1853. I was then much pleased with 
your frank and manly bearing, and delighted 
with your candid and edifying conversation. 

These circumstances, together with the fact 
that you are the senior Bishop in your church, 
prepared me to read your explanation and de- 
fense of "Methodist Church polity," with can- 
dor, and without prejudice. And I may say to 
you, Doctor, without flattery, that I count my- 
self happy in being permitted to study Method- 
ism under so great a master. 

It is true, I have read the writings of most of 
the great men of your church, such as Wesley, 
Clarke, Fletcher, Benson, Watson, Inskip's 
Methodism, and Jonathan Crother's ''Portrai- 
ture of Methodism." I have also read and 
studied your Discipline, getting a new one every 
four years, in order to keep up with the changes 
and reforms made upon it by the General Con- 
ference. I have also been a pretty constant 
reader of the Western Christian Advocate for 
many years, and of course from all these sources 



BISHOP MORRIS. 11 

of information I had enjoyed a fair opportunity 
of becoming acquainted with Methodism; but 
still, I read your little book with peculiar inter- 
est. 

Having finished the reading of your book, I 
have concluded to review it. in a kind and Chris- 
tian spirit, in a series of Letters. I shall use 
pleasant words, and hard arguments, in oppo- 
sing what I consider wrong in your discourse, 
or in Methodism as you explain and defend it. 
You have said some excellent things, and have 
said them well, and in a very plain and forcible 
manner, for which I award you all praise. Yet 
you have said some things to which, with the 
Bible in my hand, I am compelled to enter my 
prot; 

This little book, you assure us, contains your 
"mature thoughts'' on your church polity. 
Xo one acquainted with you will doubt your 
candor, or your ability to develop your church 
polity, and prove it to be of divine authority, if 
indeed it is so. Your book must therefore be 
received as a standard work, upon the subjects 
upon which it treats. 

Yen have taken a very appropriate text. Let 
us repeat it: ''For though I be absent in the 
flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying 
and beholding your order, and the steadfastness 
of your faith in Christ; " Col. ii. 5. 

After reading your text, you say, by way of 



12 LETTERS TO 

introduction : u This Epistle of Paul is addressed 
'to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ 
which are at Colosse,' or to those who not only 
profess Christianity, but faithfully practice its 
precepts and experience its saving power. All 
such are one in spirit. They may differ in spec- 
ulative theology, in forms of discipline, modes 
of worship, and in name, but they are one in 
heart." 

We most cordially agree with you that the 
church at Colosse was a model church, not only 
professing the religion of Jesus Christ, but faith- 
fully practicing its divine precepts and experi- 
encing its saving power. But your next state- 
ment we can not receive. How do you learn 
that the Colossian brethern differed in specula- 
tive theology, forms of discipline, modes of wor- 
ship, and in name? Were they divided into 
Trinitarians, Arians, Unitarians, and Material- 
ists, and still one in spirit? Were they divided 
in name, as Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, 
Lutherans and Quakers? Did some of_ them 
adopt the Discipline of the M. E. Church, an- 
other party the Westminster Confession of Faith, 
while others walked by the various rules of the 
Baptists, Lutherans and Quakers? I know that 
you will not claim that such was the case in this 
model church at Colosse. Will you affirm that 
such a state of things existed in the primitive 
church? Were they Methodists at Jerusalem, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 13 

Baptists at Rome, and Presbyterians at Corinth ? 
No indeed, you know that no such division ex- 
isted in the primitive church, and for many hun- 
dred years after the death of the Apostles. 

From what premises then do you draw your 
conclusion, that Christians may differ as you 
say above, and still be one in spirit? Does 
Christ or the Apostles intimate in a single in- 
stance, that Christians might be one in heart, 
while differing in u speculative theology, forms 
of discipline, modes of worship, and in name?" 
Certainly, nowhere in the New Testament can 
such an intimation be found. But on the con- 
trary, Christ prayed for his followers, " That 
they all may be one, as thou Father art in me 
and I in thee, that they may be one in us ; " 
John xvii. 21. Paul says, u Now, I beseech 
you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and 
that there be no divisions among you; but that 
ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, 
and in the same judgment; " 1 Cor. i. 10. 

Thus you see that Paul and his Master were 
both opposed to such division as you say may 
exist, and still the parties be one in heart. And 
with them agrees every inspired writer. No, 
Doctor, you are mistaken. It is a naked as- 
sumption, without a shadow of authority from 
the oracles of G-od. You see professed Chris- 
tians now differing in all these particulars^ and in 



14 LETTERS TO 

the goodness of your heart, you wish to excuse 
them, and throw over them the broad mantle of 
your charity, and, therefore, assume that these 
differences do not hinder them from being one 
in heart. 

Let us look at this a little further. Your 
language, although perhaps you did not intend 
it, is calculated to make the impression upon the 
casual reader, that you had found in the church 
at Colosse, a model for all the divisions you men- 
tion. You say, "All such are one in heart." 
" They may differ," etc. I need not say to you, 
because as a Bishop you know, that not only the 
Colossian church, but all the primitive Chris- 
tians walked by the same divine rule, the word 
of God, and all wore the same worthy name — the 
name Christian, from Christ their head and hus- 
band, which was given to the disciples, first at 
Antioch, by divine authority. 

As to their order of worship, Luke tells us, 
"They continued steadfastly in the Apostles' 
doctrine and in fellowship, and in breaking of 
bread, and in prayers." No division there, Doc- 
tor. The great Apostle Paul differed with you 
amazingly in his estimate of division. You teach 
us that division is not incompatible with unity, 
and the spirit of Christianity ; while he rebuked 
the manifestation of the spirit of division in the 
Corinthian church, by saying, U I could not ad- 
dress you as spiritual, but as carnal." " For while 



BISHOP MORRIS. 15 

one says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I 
of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? 
Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized 
in the name of Paul?" 

Paul teaches that where such division exists, 
the parties so divided are " carnal and walk as 
men." While you teach that such differences 
may exist, among professed Christians, while 
they may still be one in heart, and " spiritual." 
Who shall decide when doctors disagree? For 
myself, I prefer Dr. Paul, much as I love and 
admire Dr. T. A. Morris. And until you pro- 
duce some better authority for division and sec- 
tarianism than your mere assumptions, I must 
continue to adhere to the old notion, inculcated 
by Christ and his Apostles, that union is divine, 
and that division or sectarianism is heresy ! 

But is it so in fact, Doctor, that the differences 
you speak of do not break fellowship? Are 
the Methodists "one in heart" and spirit, with 
all other sects and parties? If they are, then 
we have been mistaken all our life ; and if not. 
then your language is calculated to mislead. 
You are a Trinitarian, and differ in " speculative 
theology," from Unitarians, Arians, Socinians, 
Pelagians and Universalists. Are you all one 
in spirit and in heart, notwithstanding these 
differences? 

John Calvin was a Trinitarian, and Servetus 
differed with him in some little matter of u spec- 



16 LETTERS TO 

ulative theology;" yet Calvin had him burned 
at the stake for this difference ! Were they one 
in spirit and in heart? Credat Judaes Appella; 
non ego I 



BISHOP MORRIS. 17 



LETTER II. 

Importance of the word of God as a rule of faith — All 
profitable, and therefore essential — Stick to it for 
life — If wrong, change — Paul changed — Apollos 
changed — Martin Luther changed — The "Iron bed 
stead." 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — I see that you only make two 
points in the discussion of your text, viz. : 

1st. Faith. 2d. Order. We only propose to 
examine a few things under your first head. 

On page 10th, you say: "And here we endorse 
for every consistent Christian that he believes 
all Bible truth, especially all truth essential to 
vital Christianity." 

Now, sir, from the above statement, I infer 
that you do not Jiold all " Bible truth" to be 
essential to Christianity ! That you hold to two 
classes of " Bible truths," one essential, and the 
other non-essential, and that even a good Chris- 
tian may disbelieve the non-essential truths of 
the Bible without endangering the vitality of 
his religion ! 

But the great apostle Paul differs from you 
upon this subject. He says, "All Scripture given 
by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 



18 LETTERS TO 

righteousness : that the man of God may be per- 
fect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works; " 
2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. 

According to your statement, Doctor, some 
truths in the Bible are not essential, and are con- 
sequently "unprofitable ! " But according to the 
apostle Paul, it is all profitable, and therefore 
essential. Our best lexicographers define the 
word essential to mean "necessary to." Any 
Bible truth that is not necessary to vital Chris- 
tianity is non-essential, and vital Christianity 
would be just as perfect in every respect if all 
such non-essentials were left out of the Bible 
entirely! Such non essentials are not profitable 
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for in- 
struction in righteousness, and can be of no value 
in making the man of God perfect unto all good 
works. Simply because they are unnecessary — 
" non-essential" to vital Christianity ! Are you 
prepared for this, Doctor? , 

2. The next objection I have to your statement 
above is, that you seem to have two sorts of 
Christianity; the one you call "vital Christian- 
ity/' and the other I suppose a lifeless or dead 
Christianity? Where in all the book of God 
do you read of " vital Christianity? " We had, 
in our simplicity, always supposed that the 
Christianity established by oar Lord and his 
inspired Apostles, was a living Christianity, and 
that every thing taught by Christ and his in- 



BTSIIOP MORRIS. 19 

spired teachers was essential to it ! Have I been 
mistaken? It would seem so, if you are correct. 
But I know I am not mistaken, when I affirm, 
that whatever claims to be from Christ that is 
not vital is a forgery and a libel on true Chris- 
tianity. 

3. Before leaving your first head, you say : 
" Before we adopt any system, we should be sat- 
isfied that it accords with the Bible, and then 
stick to it for life." 

Xow, my dear Doctor, I must be permitted to 
differ entirely from you upon this point. There 
is not an honest sectarian in the land, no matter 
how heretical his religious creed may be, who is 
not satisfied that his "system accords with the 
Bible!" And the more ignorant he may be of 
what the Bible plan of salvation is, the more 
confident and dogmatical is he in affirming that 
his wi system accords vrith. the Bible ! " Yet, you 
would say to all juch ignoramuses, because they 
are honest in their views and impressions, stick 
to it for life! But I would not. 1 would, how- 
' ever, give all such the instruction of the Savior, 
11 Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye 
have eternal life, and they are they that testify 
of me." 

You and I both believe that the Calvanistic 
11 system does not accord with the Bible," but is 
contrary to it, and subversive of its teachings ; 
and yet we know that thousands, both in Europe 



20 LETTERS TO 

and America, honestly embrace it, and are satis- 
fied that it accords with the Bible. Yet, you 
would advise them to u stick to it for life," not- 
withstanding you oppose it in your preaching, 
and regard it as a dangerous heresy ! A sys- 
tem which the eccentric Lorenzo Dow has re- 
duced to an absurdity, thus : 

"You can, and you can't, 
You will, and you won't, 
You shall, and you shan't, 
You'll be damned if you do, 
You'll be damned if you don't." 

But still you would advise the honest Calvinist 
to "stick to his system for life " — to search no 
further— investigate no further — but " stick to it 
for life." 

4. But I will tell you, Doctor, what course I 
take with all honest Calvinists, and all other 
honest persons whom I find in error, and satis- 
fied to remain so ; I would advise all persons, no 
matter how well satisfied they may have been 
when they embraced their religious systems, to 
"Search the Scriptures "— " Grow in grace and 
in the knowledge of the truth" — "Be not unwise, 
but understanding what the will of the Lord is." 
And if in the progress of their investigations they 
should learn the "way of the Lord more perfectly," 
and as a consequence discover that the system 
which they had honestly entertained for years as 
according to the Bible, and with which they had 



BISHOP MORRIS. 21 

been satisfied, was torong, I would advise all 
such to change — give it up, and " stick to it" no 
longer, but set themselves right without any un- 
necessary delay. 

It is the duty of every man to embrace that 
system which not only accords with the Bible, 
but which is actually taught in it. This advice 
I would give to every sectarian in the land. No 
matter how long he may have been satisfied with 
his human system^, nor how prominent he may 
stand in his branch of the sectarian tree ; even 
if he has been dubbed "D. D." or u Bishop," 
(in the modern sense,) I would urge him to read 
and investigate, and if he finds that he has been 
mistaken, give it up. Let him not dare to "stick 
to it for life," through personal pride, or vain 
glory, but make haste to change, as an honest 
man convinced of error. 

I know it is pretty hard for a popular man, 
and especially a preacher, who has been identified 
with a cause, or system, to give it up, and frankly 
and honestly say, Iicas wrong. There are many 
little reasons which a man may use to quiet his 
conscience, so that he may u stick to the error 
for life," though convinced that it is an error. 

When I was a student at the University, I was 
intimately acquainted with a Presbyterian minis- 
ter, a Doctor of Divinity and a Professor. He 
had been satisfied that the system taught in the 
Westminister Confession of Faith was in accord- 



22 LETTERS TO 

ance with the Bible; and he had successfully 
maintained the system against the opposition for 
more than a quarter of a century. But the cir- 
cumstances surrounding him were such, at the 
time to which I refer (1839-1845), that the 
learned D. D. heard a different system preached 
from the one he had espoused ; he gave heed to 
it, investigated the whole subject in the light of 
God's word, and with an honest desire to know 
the truth. And the result was that he made 
the discovery that "sectarianism is heresy," and 
that he had been honestly mistaken in his theo- 
logical system. He was in a fix! • Conscience 
said to him, change — be an honest man, and set 
yourself right. 

But his pride of character, love of friends at- 
tachment to old and long-tried church arrange- 
ments, social institutions, and modes of worship, 
all appealed to him to hold on to the system of 
his fathers — "to stick to it for life." Said he 
to me one day, " I am now fully satisfied that 
you are right in the main. I haye no doubt but 
you are right, in preaching faith as the simple 
belief of the truth, as revealed in the Bible. I 
am sure," continued he, "that you are right as 
to the design of baptism being ' for the remission 
of sins;' nothing is more clearly taught in the 
New Testament. And the mode, too," said he, 
" I have no doubt John immersed the Savior in 



BISHOr MORRIS. 23 

the Jordan, and that the disciples and early 
Christians immersed exclusively." 

Well, said I to the Doctor, if that is your 
faith, had you not better change your position, 
and set yourself right before God and man ? 

He very frankly admitted that it would be 
right; but said he, after a moment's reflection, 
11 I think it hardly worth while for me to change 
now. It would sound so strangely to my friends. 
I have been preaching infant sprinkling, and 
practicing it, too, for more than thirty years; 
and during that time have sprinkled hundreds, 
if not thousands of babies, and if I were now, 
in my old age, to be immersed for the remission 
of sins, what would my old friends and acquaint- 
ances say of me?" 

And so the learned minister did not carry out 
fully the convictions of his mind ; though he 
did change his ecclesiastical relation, uniting 
with a church having more liberal views of 
Christianity, but not requiring immersion. 

5. But we have some very eminent examples 
of this principle of change. Saul of Tarsus, 
afterwards Paul the Apostle, was a very religious 
man before his conversion to Christ. He tells 
us, that "touching the righteousness of the law, 
he had lived blameless." That he u had served 
God, in all good conscience, from his fore- 
fathers." That u he verily thought that he 
ought to do many things contrary to the name 



24 LETTERS TO 

of Jesus of Nazareth.' ' For many years he 
was entirely satisfied with his religious system, 
honestly believing that he was right and ac- 
cepted of God. 

But on his way to Damascus to persecute the 
Christians, he met the Lord Jesus, in the vision, 
and he was convinced that he was in error. 
Now what must he do? If you had been at 
Damascus in the place of Ananias, you would 
have said to him, " Stick to your system for life/ 
Never change ! But Ananias said to him, "And 
now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be im- 
mersed, and wash away thy sins, calling on the 
name of the Lord." To this he submitted 
forthwith, which was an entire abandonment of 
his old system, with which he had been so long 
satisfied, and a complete change to a new system, 
the gospel of Christ, which he immediately 
preached in Damascus. 

Apollos, the eloquent preacher of the baptism 
of John, with which he had been satisfied for 
years, and which he had zealously and success- 
fully preached at Corinth, being u taught the 
way of the Lord more perfectly," by Aquilla and 
Priscilla, surrendered and gave it up. But if 
you had been there, you would have advised 
him to change not ! u Stick to it for life ! " 

Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic monk, 
and for many years fully satisfied that the sys- 
tem which he had honestly embraced accorded 



BISHOP MORRIS. 25 

with the Bibl^ Out afterwards, as you know,' 
l^ was convinced by reading the Bible that he 
was mistaken. What was he to do now ? You 
would have said to him, u Stick to it for life." 
Well, suppose he had taken your advice, and 
continued to maintain in the Romish Church 
that system which he was now fully convinced 
was wrong, what would have become of his 
honesty — of his conscience — of his manhood — 
of the glorious Reformation itself, which he so 
effectually promoted by changing? Did Luther 
do right, when he gave up his old system, and 
became a reformer? We all say that he acted 
wisely and nobly. He did just what every other 
man should do when he finds that he is wrong. 
But your advice, my dear sir, would have kept 
Luther and Calvin, and all the early reformers, 
in the old apostate hierarchy ! You would have 
said to them : Gentlemen, I know your system 
is wrong, but as you have been satisfied with it, 
I advise you to " stick to it for life ! " 

6. Time would fail me to speak of John and 
Charles Wesley, and many other prominent 
men in your own church, all of whom changed. 
If Wesley and his co-laborers in the work of 
developing and bringing out Methodism, had 
taken your advice, and " stuck to their old sys- 
tem for life," where would your Methodism 
have been to-day? Why, nowhere. It could 
never have been inaugurated. 



26 LETTERS TO 

But let these examples suffix. If we were a u 
infallible, then we might talk about **Btlx>i=i«^ ^ 
it for life." But as imperfection is an attribute 
of our common humanity, we are liable to err, 
and may be honestly mistaken, and satisfied with 
a false system. Therefore, before your advice 
can be admitted as wise and safe, you must strike 
out humanity, and insert divinity. 

7. But I will now give you what I consider 
the wisest and safest course for every one to 
pursue. All Protestants admit that the Bible 
is the only infallible rule of faith and practice ; 
and upon the admission of all parties, human 
creeds and systems contain much that is errone- 
ous — mere trash. 

To make sure work, then, and save us from 
the trouble of changing afterwards, we should 
be very particular ; and instead of embracing a 
human system, supposed to accord with the 
Bible, let every one be certain to embrace the 
system taught in the Bible. To make sure of 
this, let him embrace the Bible, the whole Bible, 
and nothing but the Bible, as a system of faith 
and practice. He may not understand it all 
when he embraces it, but let him determine to 
study it, and to learn as much of it as he can. 
He may then " grow in grace and in the knowl- 
edge of the truth," as long as he lives. He may 
then "stick to it for life," and though he may 
learn many things as he advances, yet all would 



BISHOP MORRIS. 27 

be in harmony with what he learned at first, 
and consequently he would never be under the 
necessity of changing. Is not this the safest 
course, Doctor ? 

8. But the votaries of human creeds and sys- 
tems are cramped in their investigations. The 
creed is the "iron bedstead." If found to be 
too short for it, they must be stretched ; and if 
they grow too long, by learning more Bible 
truth than is in the creed, they must be cut off 
to suit the measure. 

But as all these matters will come up again 
under your second head, I will press it no fur- 
ther now. 



28 LETTERS TO 



LETTER III. 

Order — Government of some sort in the church is 
needed — Without government all would be confu- 
sion — Corrupt practices would creep in — What sort 
of government shall we have, human or divine? 
Specific form of government — Prudential rnles and 
regulations— God's appointment must be obeyed — 
The Bible the constitutional law of the Church — 
Branches of the church, etc. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D.: 

My Dear Sir — We now come to the second 
division of your subject, which is u Order.' ' 
This you discuss as applying to church polity 
and discipline. Now, in my judgment, the Apos- 
tle has no sort of reference to any thing of the 
kind, in the passage you quo^e as your text. He 
simply refers to the order of their worship, as a 
congregation of the Lord. He says : " Though 
absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the 
spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the 
steadfastness of your faith, " etc. From this 
passage and its context, it is evident that the 
Apostle is speaking of their public worship, and 
not of the exercise of discipline, as you seem to 
teach. But we shall let that pass. You com- 
mence the discussion of this branch of your 
subject by saying, on page 11th : 

" The term order, in this connection, properly 



; 



BISHOP MORRIS. 29 

applies to church discipline, and its administra- 
tion. It will be conceded by all competent 
judges that government of some sort or other 
in the church, is requisite to her peace and 
prosperity. This is true of all associations, 
whether voluntary or involuntary. What would 
be the condition of your family without family 
government ? Or of your schools without strict 
rules of propriety and order? Or of your State, 
without wholesome laws duly administered? Or 
of your army, without strict military discipline? 
And what would become of the peace, purity 
and prosperity of the church, without c rules and 
regulations ' strictly enforced ? All would be in 
a state of anarchy and confusion, doomed to 
wreck and ruin, corrupt practices would creep 
in, confidence would be destroyed, and hatred 
would supersede peace and love.' 7 

In all of this, Doctor, I most heartily concur. 
u Order is heaven's first law." Discipline we 
must have in the church of God. This is a 
proposition that commends itself to the good 
sense of every right-thinking person, and I think 
none will be inclined to dispute it. , " Rules and 
regulations" we must have for the government 
of the church, or the result would be just what 
you describe, "anarchy and confusion." Upon 
this point we have no controversy with you, or 
any one else. 

But the real issue, Doctor, is this : What sort 



30 LETTERS TO 

of discipline shall we have, the human, or the 
divine? God has established a government in 
the church, and furnished it with a perfect law 
or discipline. Men also have made governments 
for the church, and manufactured disciplines for 
its government. So that we can now take our 
choice. We may choose the divine law and 
government, and honor God, by doing his com- 
mandments ; or we may choose the human dis- 
cipline and government, if we like it better, and 
dishonor God and ourselves by ignoring the 
divine, and adopting the human. 

Well, Doctor, we say the divine discipline, 
and the divine rules and regulations, without 
amendment, addition or subtraction, as con- 
tained in the Holy Oracles, is the best. While 
you and the sects generally, seem to prefer the 
human ! And though you admit the correctness 
of our plea, by admitting the Bible to be "the 
only infallible rule of faith and practice ; " yet 
you stultify yourself, by making what you are 
pleased to call your " prudential rules," for the 
government of your church. 

We candidly believe, Doctor, that it is because 
the professed Christian church, or Protestant 
Christendom, do not adopt and live up to the 
divine rule, that anarchy and confusion is every- 
where manifest. Men are not satisfied with the 
"divine rules and regulations," and have gone 
to work to improve upon them ! Each party 



BISHOP MORRIS. 31 

making its " prudential rules and regulations'' 
to suit themselves, and then assuming some 
human name for the party, suitable to their 
fancy; and every day confusion becomes worse 
confounded ! But you continue : 

" We do not contend, however, that any spe- 
cific form of church government is essential. 
The gospel is destined to prevail among all na- 
tions, and their social and political conditions 
are so diversified, that the same prudential rules 
and regulations would not be applicable to all of 
them. These prudential rules and regulations 
may, therefore, be safely varied to any needful 
extent, not inconsistent with the Bible, which is 
the constitutional law of the church generally." 

Now, my dear bishop, let us pause and calmly 
examine this last paragraph for a few moments. 
1. You do not pretend that any ".specific form 
of church government is essential." That is — if 
your words mean any thing — any form will do, 
one as well as another, if it is strictly enforced ! 
The human is just as good as the divine, pro- 
vided it is strictly enforced ; no specific form is 
essential ! ! 

Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not 
that the Lord Jesus, as King and Head of the 
church, has given "specific rules and regula- 
tions " for the government of his church ? Will 
you presume to say that these are not essential? 
That your prudential rules and regulations will 



6Z LETTERS TO 

do just as well, or even better ! Or do you con- 
tend that he left the law-making power entirely 
in the hands of uninspired men ? 2. But you 
further say, "The gospel is destined to prevail 
among all nations, and their social and political 
conditions are so diversified that the same pru- 
dential rules and regulations would not be ap- 
plicable to all of them." 

This I understand to be your reason for think- 
ing that no specific form of church government 
is essential. In this, however, I differ widely 
from you. We contend that the •' specific form 
of church government" given to the church of 
Christ in the begining, is not only ''essential,'' 
but is precisely adapted to all the nations of 
earth. Why, sir, you might have contended 
with equal propriety that the gospel itself was 
not adapted to all nations, and therefore should 
be modified to suit the taste and prejudice of the 
people of every age and country ! And some 
have even taken this ground ! For instance : 

In the beginning none but believers were 
baptized by the Apostles, and that was always 
performed by an immersion of the whole body 
in water, as thou very well knowest. John 
Calvin says, " The word baptizo signifies to im- 
merse, and it is evident that immersion was the 
practice of the primitive church." And yet 
Calvin contends that the rite of baptism may be 
varied to suit circumstances, place, climate, ^tc, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 33 

In the beginning the Apostles taught believing 
penitents to " be immersed every one of them in 
the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
sins; " Acts ii. 38. But we are now assured by 
some innovators upon 'apostolic teaching, that 
though this may have been all well enough at 
that time, and for that people, yet in this age of 
progress, good manners and personal refinement, 
it is not to be tolerated ! It is neither polite nor 
fashionable now to be immersed! And as to re- 
mission of sins being in any way connected with 
baptism, the thing is an old fogy notion — it is 
a Campbellism," and not to be thought of among 
cultivated society and orthodox people ! The 
gospel must, therefore, be varied to suit the 
times, and to accommodate " ears polite ; " and 
remission of sins is now preached by "faith 
alone," or at the " mourner's bench ; " and thus, 
to keep up with the fashion of the times, Jordan 
is converted into a bowl, and the sprinkling of a 
few drops of water upon the head of an unbe- 
lieving babe, is made to take the place of be- 
liever's immersion. Such persons no doubt 
think that the Abana and Parphar of their own 
imagination are better than the specific Jordan 
of God's appointment. 

But you have not gone quite so far ; you only 
contend that the specific form of church govern- 
ment, laid down by Christ and his inspired 
2 



34 LETTERS TO 

Apostles, is unsuitable to all nations, and may, 
therefore, be varied to any needful extent. To 
this we object. The Apostles, in their day, 
preached the gospel among all nations, and es- 
tablished churches everywhere ; yet they did 
not vary the law of the Lord to suit the social 
and political conditions of the different nations. 
The specific rules and regulations laid down for 
the government of the church were the same 
everywhere. The Apostles had not made the 
important discovery that these rules and regula- 
tions were unsuited to all ! 

But they were a set of old fogies, and not at all 
to be compared with the theologians of this pro- 
gressive and refined age. But will Bishop Mor- 
ris tell us why these rules are unsuited to all ? 

4. Now, I maintain that every variation from 
the specific form of church government laid 
down in the New Testament, is a departure 
from the law of the Lord, and inconsistent with 
the Bible, and therefore sinful. If David was 
right when he said, " The law of the Lord is- 
perfect," and James, when he calls it the (< per- 
fect law of liberty," then you are grossly mis- 
taken when you say that no form is essential, 
and that it may therefore be varied to suit the 
social and political conditions of those among 
whom it prevails! All human institutions 
change, and may be modified to suit circum- 
stances, reformed and made more perfect, as 



BISHOP MORRIS. 35 

human experience may require. The reason is, 
because human wisdom and all human systems 
are imperfect. But God is perfect, and what- 
ever he does is done in divine wisdom, and 
therefore can never need any change or variation 
to make it answer the purpose for which it was 
intended. You are therefore radically wrong in 
your assumption. 

5. But you speak of the Bible as the " con- 
stitutional law of the church generally." If I 
understand you, you assume that the different 
denominations, as such, are branches of the true 
church, and taken as a whole, they constitute 
what you call " the church generally/' 

You then make the several denominations, as 
branches, sustain to the Bible the same relation 
that the several States sustain to the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. But are you right 
sure, Doctor, that you are correct in this com- 
parison? Will it hold good? 

I am sure that it is a sophism. 1. The 
church of Christ is a unit, and has no branch 
churches or denominations. The whole figure 
is therefore a failure. The denominations, as 
such, are not branches of Christ's church. 
Taken as a whole, they do not constitute the 
church of Christ. If they did, then the church 
would have been imperfect till the last branch 
had grown up! Again, if you are correct in 
your figure, there would be a sort of sympathy 



36 LETTERS TO 

pervading the whole, and a constant mutual de- 
pendence would exist throughout all the denom- 
inations. The Baptists would lean upon the 
Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists, and 
would be happy in the prosperity of all the 
branches ! 

But is this the case? No, verily. There is 
no sympathy between the Baptist and Method- 
ist churches, as every one knows. The Baptist 
denomination existed, and carried on all their 
operations for more than a hundred years, before 
the organization called the Methodist Church had 
been thought of, and could continue to do so if 
the Methodist Church was annihilated this mo- 
ment. This proves that they are not parts of 
the one great whole, but mere sects, each inde- 
pendent of all the others, and really in opposition 
to them ! The branches of Christ's church are 
not sects or denominations, but individual mem- 
bers, as such. Jesus says to his disciples, not to 
the denominations, but to his individual disci- 
ples, " I am the vine, and ye are the branches.' ' 

2. But if the denominations, as such, were all 
branches of Christ's church, or what you call 
" the church generally," still your case is not 
made out. The Constitution of the United 
States fully contemplates the organization of 
new States, and gives them specific powers to 
proceed in such a work, and when organized 



BISHOP MORRIS. 37 

gives such new States full power to make laws 
and regulations for their own government. 

But the Bible does not contemplate the form- 
ation of branches or denominations, but on the 
contrary, strictly forbids it; and therefore it 
gives no authority to such branches or sects to 
make "prudential rules and regulations" for 
their own government ! So far from it, all are 
required to submit implicitly to the laws of the 
Great King already made and published in the 
New Testament. You ought therefore, in jus- 
tice to yourself, to abandon your sophistical 
figure, which has led you and thousands greatly 
astray. 



38 LETTERS TO 



LETTER IV. 

Government of M. E. Church peculiar — Was not form- 
ed by theorizing — The result of experience and ob- 
servation — A mere experiment—A human institution 
— Government of Christ's church no experiment — 
The Apostles made no experiments — The mourning 
bench an experiment — A mere human expedient 
— The Doctor brings his rules to the test — Not to 
the scriptural test, the word of God. but the test 
of experience and utility — It is the system of 
Methodism, and those who profess it, that we are 
examining. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D.: 

My Dear Sir — After referring to the differ- 
ent kinds of governments, both political and 
ecclesiastical, you say on page 15th : "The gov- 
ernment of the Methodist Episcopal Church is 
peculiar. It is not entirely analogous to either 
of the above named systems, but does, as we 
think, embody the better features of them all, 
and exclude their objectionable ones." 

Verily, Doctor, thou hast well said, that the 
government of your church is peculiar ! In its 
government the M. E. Church is unlike any 
modern church; and I presume that you will 
not claim that it is like the government of the 
primitive church. It is simply " PECULIAR.' ' 
But I will not anticipate. 

Next, you say of your church government, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 39 

"It is eminently practical ; was not formed by 
theorizing, but is the result of experience." 

The result of whose experience, Doctor? 
Was it the experience of the inspired Apostles 
of the Lamb, who were called, qualified and 
sent by the Master to convert the nations, and 
build up the church, guided by the Spirit of in- 
spiration? This I know you do not claim. No 
indeed, you are too deeply versed in the Chris- 
tology of the New Testament, not to know that 
the inspired Apostles made no experiments in 
Christianity. They taught no Methodism, or 
any other humanism, but spake the word of the 
Lord, " as the Spirit gave them utterance," and 
therefore made no mistakes that would after- 
wards be found out in the light of experience 
and have to be corrected. 

But you evidently refer to the experience of 
the founders of Methodism, and their successors, 
the bishops and clergy of your church. And 
in this you are in harm ony with the language of 
your Discipline, which we find in the address to 
the members, by the bishops, at the commence- 
ment of the book of Discipline. The passage 
runs thus : 

" We believe that God's design in raising up 
the preachers called Methodists in America, was 
to reform the continent, and spread Scripture 
holiness over these lands. As a proof hereof, 
we have seen, since that time, a great and glori- 



40 LETTERS TO 

ous work of God, from New York, through the 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Vir- 
ginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia; 
as also, of late, to the extremities of the Western 
and Eastern States. 

"We esteem it our duty and privilege most 
earnestly to recommend to you, as members of 
our church, our form of Discipline, which has 
been founded on the experience of a long series 
of years ; as also on the observations and re- 
marks we have made on ancient and modern 
churches." 

This address, of which the above extract is a 
part, is signed by the six Bishops of your 
church— who are : Beverly Waugh, Thomas A. 
Morris, Edmond S. Janes, Levi Scott, Matthew 
Simpson, Edward R. Ames and Osman C. 
Baker. 

Finding your name among those appended to 
this address, you will not complain if I hold you 
responsible for the statements contained in it. 
According to your statement, then, both in your 
little book and the Discipline, the government 
of the M. E. Church is a mere experiment, and 
of course a human institution. You teach us 
plainly that vour "form of discipline has been 
founded.'" Yes, " founded ; " upon what is it 
founded, Doctor? On Jesus Christ? On the 
Bible? No indeed, nothing of the sort. But 
on the experience of your bishops, who are all 



BISHOP MORRIS. 41 

fallible men, and liable to err ; and on the " ob- 
servations and remarks " that you have made on 
ancient and modern churches. A glorious 
foundation for a religious system, and form of 
church government ! The experience, observa- 
tions and remarks of six men ! Not inspired 
men, but simply Methodist preachers, who lived 
more than seventeen hundred years after the 
kingdom of Christ was set up in the world ! 

That I do you no injustice, is evident from 
another statement of yours. I quote from 15th 
page of your book. You say : "As Methodism 
arose and progressed, when the want of a rule 
was felt to aid the work, it was adopted. If its 
practical working was found to be good, it was 
retained ; but if not good, it was modified or 
abolished. Thus each prudential regulation has 
been brought to the test of experience and prac- 
ical utility, one page of which is worth more 
than a volume of theory.' ' 

From this we see that Methodism, according 
to the statement of its senior Bishop, is not only 
an experiment, but having no theory, it was 
compelled to work in the dark, and feel its way 
along, trying to supply its imaginary wants by 
adopting "prudential rules and regulations" of 
its own make, and if the experiment was satisfac- 
tory, retaining them ; and if unsatisfactory, 
modifying or abolishing them altogether, and 
trying something else which might seem to suit 



42 LETTERS TO 

better ; and subjecting this again, in turn, to the 
same test, experience ! 

The founders of Methodism did not, and their 
successors in office do not know, when they 
adopt a rule or regulation, that it is the thing 
they need, or that it will answer the purpose for 
which it is designed; but feeling the need of 
something, they adopt it as an experiment know- 
ing that it can be changed or abolished, if it 
should not work up to the expectations of its 
friends. 

By your own showing, Doctor, you have been 
experimenting for seventy years ! During which 
time you have brought Methodism, which was 
very imperfect at first, up to its present state of 
perfection and prosperity. But you do not even 
now claim that the system of Methodism is per- 
fect. But you speak of other changes in its 
polity soon likely to be made. From your own 
testimony, then, we must believe that the system 
of Methodism, as contained in your Discipline, 
and contended for by you, is an imperfect, human 
institution — a mere experiment. How then, 
Doctor, can you believe that it will " reform the 
continent and spread scriptural holiness over 
these lands ?" 

Not so the church of Christ. Its government 
and form OF discipline was no experiment. 
The Lord Jesus commissioned his Apostles, and 
gave them a divine theory, and sent them an- 






BISHOP MORRIS. 43 

other comforter, the Holy Spirit, to guide them 
into all truth. According to this divine theory 
they worked, under the direction of the Holy 
Spirit, in proclaiming the glad tidings of salva- 
tion, and building up the church of Christ in 
the beginning. 

They felt no need of any "rule" to " aid 
them in the work " of converting the nations, 
and therefore never adopted any by guess ! Peter 
says, u According as his divine power hath 
given unto as all things that pertain to life and 
godliness." If Peter was right in saying that 
God had given to him and his fellow disciples, 
all things that pertained to life and godliness, it 
is evident that they could need nothing more to 
" aid them in the work." 

Let us now hear Paul's testimony upon this 
point. Paul, stand up. You are the Apostle 
to the Gentiles, and preached the gospel very 
extensively throughout the civilized world dur- 
ing the first century of the Christian age. Am 
I right ? 

Paul. — "From Jerusalem and round unto 
Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of 
Christ." 

Did you ever feel the need of a rule or any 
thing else, that you had not, to aid you in the 
work ? 

Paul. — "All scripture given by inspiration 
of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for 



44 LETTERS TO 

correction, for instruction in righteousness, that 
the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly 
furnished to all good works." 

That will do, Paul. 

All the "rules and regulations" that were 
necessary to make the man of God perfect, and 
thoroughly furnish him to all good works, Paul 
and Peter and their fellow-laborers found in the 
holy Scriptures, and of course they had no need 
to draw upon their own experience and obser- 
vations for u prudential rules." They already 
possessed every thing that was necessary for the 
work, and therefore they never felt the need of 
any thing more, to aid them in the work of the 
Lord. 

Now it occurs to me, Dr. Morris, that if you 
or your co-laborers are engaged in a work, in 
the progress of which you occasionally "feel 
the need of a rule to aid you in the work," that t 
God has not furnishod his church, in the holy 
Scriptures, you have great reason to believe that 
your work is not of God, but of man ! Do you 
say that all your prudential rules are taken from 
the Bible ? I presume you will not, because if 
they were found there, you would not dare to 
" modify or abolish them." But your system be- 
ing peculiar, u feels the need" of other rules 
and regulations than those furnished by inspir- 
ation ! There being no such thing as Methodism 
in the days of the Apostles, they made no rules 



BISHOP MORRIS. 45 

for its government, and consequently it has to 
make rules for its own government, adapted to 
its many peculiarities, and in this way supply its 
own wants, as experience and observation seem 
to require ! 

Was it not upon this principle of experiment- 
ing, that you instituted the " mourning-bench, " 
or "anxious seat," for the purpose of praying 
penitent sinners into Christ? I believe that 
Methodism claims the honor of first introducing 
it. You are unwilling to preach " baptism for 
the remission of sins," as the Apostles did in 
the beginning, and therefore you "felt the need 
of something to aid you in the work," and to 
supply this need, you adopted the " mourning 
bench," as an experiment! Its practical work- 
ing was satisfactory, and you have therefore 
retained it, as a part of your ecclesiastical ma- 
chinery ! Other parties, too, seeing your success 
in the use of it, have adopted it also, and thus 
the primitive gospel has been set aside and made 
void by a mere human expedient ! 

But you do not claim divine authority for your 
" prudential rules." You inform us that all 
your prudential rules and regulations are brought 
to the " test.^ Very well, that is right, provided 
always that you bring them to the infallible test. 
Paul says, " Prove all things ; hold fast that 
which is good." But permit me to ask you, in 
all kindness, Doctor, to what " test" you bring 



46 LETTERS TO 

your rules ? To the divine law, or word of God ? 
Nothing of the kind ! You say, " Thus each 
prudential regulation has been brought to the 
test of experience and practical utility. " 

From this frank avowal, we see that the a test 11 
to which you bring your rules is not the word of 
Grod, but your own experience ! Thus the law 
of the Great King is lost sight of, and in its 
stead human experience is erected into a test — a 
standard by which you determine the utility of 
your rules and regulations. 

Considering your peculiar system of Method- 
ism as an experiment — a mere human institu- 
tion (and if I understand you, you claim nothing 
more for it), this may all be well enough. 
Viewed from such a stand-point, your system of 
church polity, wrought out in the work- shop of 
human experience and observation, is admirable, 
and commands the respect and admiration of the 
world ! Let me not, however, be misunderstood. 
I am dealing with Methodism, as set forth and 
defended by its friends and leading men. I am 
saying nothing against the members of the M. E. 
Church, as men. It is the system, and not 
those who embrace it, that I am examining at 
present. 

I am happy to believe that there are in the 
Methodist Church many good and deeply pious 
men and women, among whom I number many 
warm personal friends ; and I would not say a 



BISHOP MORRIS. 47 

word in disparagement of any of them. Yet, 
believing as I do, that the peculiar system of 
Methodism is a human institution, upon the ad- 
mission of its greatest men, I can not do less, 
as an honest man, u than speak that I do know, 
and testify that I have seen." -In our next we 
shall examine your " starting point." 



LETTERS TO 



LETTER V . 

The starting point — The love of God — Not peculiar to 
Methodism — Call to the ministry — No Methodism in 
the days of the Apostles — The Apostles proved their 
divine call by miracles— Modern pretenders to such 
call fail to prove it — Success not sufficient proof — 
Personal application of redemption — Total depravity 
—Conversion without outward means— Paul exam- 
ined as a witness by Bishop Morris. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D.: 

My Dear Sir — I now come to your " starting 
point,'* on the 16th page of your little book* 
If I understand you, it is your object to give us 
a u rapid outline view of the essential parts of 
your system, and its practical workings." To 
do this, you take us to your " starting point." 
By which I undei stand you to mean the manner 
of starting a Methodist Church. You say, " In 
Methodism the starting point is, the love of God 
as developed in redemption, in the gift of the 
Spirit, and the divine call to the work of the 
ministry. Without redemption there is no pos- 
sible salvation for sinners ; without the Holy 
Spirit there could be no personal application of 
the benefits of redemption ; and without some 
one be called to teach us, we should remain ig- 
norant of our blood-bought privileges, as Paul 
to the Romans, ' For whosoever shall call upon 



BISHOP MORRIS. 49 

the name of the Lord shall be saved. How 
then shall the} 7 call on him in whom they have 
not believed? and how shall they believe in him 
of whom they have not heard? and how shall 
they hear without a preacher? and how shall 
they preach except they be sent.' " 

Well, this is rather a pretty start. Let us 
pause a while and examine it. The love of God, 
as developed in the gift and death of his Son, is 
the "starting point" in Christianity, and, there- 
fore, is not peculiar to Methodism. Christianity 
started seventeen centuries before Methodism 
was instituted, and consequently you have no 
right, Doctor, to claim it as the " starting point " 
in Methodism. 

The gift of the Spirit was received on the day 
of Pentecost, with his miraculous gifts and pow- 
ers, and was promised as a comforter and wit- 
ness to all obedient believers, and is peculiar to 
Christianity, and you ought not to claim it as a 
peculiarity of Methodism. Every disciple of 
Christ, who has lived since the day of Pente- 
cost, has enjoyed the Holy Spirit, before as well 
as after the inauguration of Methodism by John 
Wesley, its father. And of course it is not a 
peculiarity of your peculiar system. 

As to the " divine call to the work of the 
ministry," I remark, that if you mean by this 
that the Apostles of the Lamb were divinely 
called, qualified and sent to preach the gospel to 



50 LETTERS TO 

the nations, then I have no objection to the 
statement ; but I protest against your making it 
a peculiarity of Methodism, or the " starting 
point " in the formation of a Methodist church. 
There was no such organism as the M. E. 
Church in the days of the Apostles. 

But if you mean that Methodist preachers are 
divinely called, qualified and sent, as the Apos- 
tles were, then I must be permitted to withhold 
my assent till I see the proof. Now, we under- 
stand you and your preachers to claim this. 
But I know that you can never make good this 
extravagant claim. And if you can not start a 
Methodist church until your preachers can 
prove their divine call to the ministry, as the 
Apostles proved theirs, I am sure you would 
never be able to start it ! 

The Apostles being immersed in the Holy 
Spirit, could speak the languages which they had 
not learned ; and they demonstrated their divine 
call by u signs and wonders, and divers miracles 
and gifts of the Holy Spirit," according to the 
will of God. Not so with Methodist preachers, 
and others who claim to be " called, qualified 
and sent" by the Holy spirit. If we believe 
them, it must be upon their own mere assertion, 
and without a particle of legitimate evidence. 
Who is prepared for this ? 

But even this extravagant claim is not peculiar 
to Methodism. Other parties made the same 



BISHOP MORRIS. 51 

pretensions long before Methodism was born. 
Among the warring sects and parties who claim 
to be divinely called, qualified and sent, we find 
" all sorts of doctrines, preached by all sorts of 
men." How shall we decide who are really the 
called and sent? They all claim it, but none of 
them can furnish any proof. 

One man when he rises to preach the peculiar 
dogmas of his sect, tells us that God has called 
and sent him to preach, and that he will hand it 
out to us just as God gives it to him ! He then 
proceeds to give us a dish of high-toned Calvan- 
ism. Another rises on the following Lord's day, 
and after making similar pretensions, proceeds 
to warn us against the errors of Calvanism, and 
in opposition to what the first preacher taught, 
he proceeds to give us a sermon on Arminianism. 
A third gets up, and after thanking God that 
he has no " larnin" he assures us that God has 
called, qualified and sent him to preach the gos- 
pel to every "critter upon the tvhole living 
y earth" and proceeds to give us the peculiar 
dogmas of his little sect. Now, no one can be- 
lieve that they are called of God, and sent to 
preach the absurdities of their respective sys- 
tems, as they contradict each other most flatly ; 
and as they can give no evidence of their call, 
I think the only safe course is to reject them all 
as pretenders, and cleave to the old preachers, 
who were able and did establish their divine 



52 LETTERS TO 

call, beyond the possibility of a reasonable 
doubt. 

But perhaps you will say, as some of your 
preachers have said, that your divine call to the 
ministry of the Methodist Church is proved be- 
yond doubt by the success that has attended 
your ministry. That you have had great suc- 
cess in preaching the peculiarities of Methodism, 
is admitted ; but the Roman Catholics have been 
equally successful in preaching their heretical 
doctrines, both in Europe and America, and 
much more successful in her missions to China, 
Japan, and other foreign countries. 

Mahomet and his followers have had great 
success in spreading their false religion, and 
none have been more signally successful than 
Joe Smith and Brigham Young, the Mormon 
pretenders. If success is evidence of a divine 
call, then they all have it. Yet you and I both 
reject such evidence in favor of Catholicism, 
Mormonism and Islamism. And if success will 
not prove the divine call of the advocates of 
these heresies, it can never prove the divinity 
of your call. 

The Lord commends a certain church, saying, 
u Thou hast tried them who say they are apostles 
and are not, and hast found them liars." But 
I am satisfied that God has called every Chris- 
tian to work in his great vineyard, and to say 
"come" according to his ability; not by a 



BISHOP MORRIS. 53 

dream, or a vague impression, but by his word. 
And the very best evidence that a minister can 
give that he is divinely called to the work is, 
that he preaches the word as it was preached 
in the beginning — at the "starting point" at 
Jerusalem. 

But we affirm that God never called any man 
to preach Methodism, Presbyterianism, Baptist - 
ism, Campbellism, or any other humanism. The 
command of Christ to his disciples was, " Go, 
preach the gospel to every creature." And 
John says, " They that are of God hear us [the 
Apostles], and they that are not of God, hear 
not us ; by this we know the Spirit of truth, and 
the spirit of error." Here, then, is a divine 
test, by which every man's pretensions to a di- 
vine call may be brought. 

But you say, "Without redemption, there is 
no possible salvation for sinners ; without the 
Holy Spirit there could be no personal applica- 
tion of the benefits of redemption." 

No one, Doctor, I presume, will be inclined 
to dispute with you as to the necessity of re- 
demption ; but as to the personal application of 
the benefits of redemption, by the Holy Spirit, 
there may be some controversy. I may not 
comprehend your meaning, when you speak of 
personal application, but I suppose you mean 
about this : The sinner being totally depraved, 
is wholly unable to believe the gospel, repent 



54 LETTERS TO 

of his sins, or do any thing else in the way of 
obedience to Christ ; and therefore the gospel 
preached to such sinners could not benefit them, 
or any one of them, until the Holy Spirit makes 
a direct personal application of the benefits of 
redemption, and thus enable them to believe, 
repent and turn to the Lord. And this is never 
done to whole congregations at once, but one 
here and another there, in the congregation, are 
thus personally operated on, and converted to 
God ; while the rest of the congregation are 
passed by, at least for the present, and left in a 
state of unbelief and sin, without the possibility 
of salvation, till the Holy Spirit shall come at 
some future time, and make a personal applica- 
tion to them, or some of them, also. Though 
Christ has died for them all, yet his death can 
avail them nothing without the "personal appli- 
cation. " 

To this monstrous dogma I object. 1st. Be- 
cause the Bible nowhere teaches that all men 
are thus totally depraved. All men are more or 
less depraved, and some men are no doubt totally 
depraved, and u given over to hardness of heart 
and reprobacy of mind, that they may believe a 
lie and be damned." But some men are cer- 
tainly worse than others, which could not be 
true if all men were alike totally depraved. One 
who is totally depraved can get no worse, for the 
devil is only totally depraved; yet Paul says 



BISHOP MORRIS. 55 

that " wicked men and seducers will wax worse 
and worse, deceiving and being deceived. " 
Hence we see that this dogma, as held by the 
M. E. Church and others, and which involves 
the idea of a " personal application," is false, as 
it is unreasonable and unscriptural. 

2d. Because it destroys man's accountability 
to God for his actions. For if the sinner can 
not believe God until the Holy Spirit operates 
upon his heart, immediately and personalty, then 
while he is waiting for his personal application 
his unbelief and disobedience can not be charged 
upon him as a sin, seeing that it is no fault of 
his. He is ready and anxious to enjoy redemp- 
tion, but can not, without the personal applica- 
tion of it to him by the Holy Spirit, and he is 
waiting for that, and can do nothing to superin- 
duce it. Therefore, his standing all the day idle 
is no sin. 

3d. Because such a view of God's system of 
justification strikes down the difference between 
virtue and vice, righteousness and unrighteous- 
ness, and makes God the author of sin ; as he 
withholds the Holy Spirit from the sinner, by 
the direct personal agency of which he can alone 
obtain the ability to work righteousness. 

4th. Because it makes God l 'a respecter of 
persons." According to the dogma, he makes 
a personal application to some and withholds it 
from others. Yet Peter says, u Now I perceive 



56 LETTERS TO 

of a truth, that God is no respecter of persons." 

5th. Because it impeaches the Divine justice. 
For if God sends his Spirit to make a " personal 
application" of the benefits of redemption to 
some, while he withholds it from others, how 
can his justice be vindicated in the damnation 
of those who never had the ability to come to 
Christ, and no personal application was made to 
them ? 

6th. Because it contradicts the Lord's word. 
It makes the personal application, by the Holy 
Spirit, the power of God unto salvation. But 
Paul says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of 
Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation 
to every one that believes." Here is an irrecon- 
cilable contradiction between your system and 
Paul. 

Again the Apostle says, "It pleased God by 
the foolishness of preaching to save them who 
believe." But your dogma contradicts the 
Apostle, and substitutes the "personal applica- 
tion " for the Gospel of Christ. 

I understand that when the Spirit came, at 
the " starting point" not of Methodism, but the 
church of Jesus Christ, he " convinced the world 
of sin, of righteousness and of judgment," and 
that he still does the same work, in the same 
way, not by immediate personal application, or 
by impact, but through the instrumentality of the 
gospel. And hence, where the gospel is not 



BISHOP MORRIS. 57 

preached, no one is converted to Christ ; and 
where the truth is not known, no one is " sancti- 
fied through the truth." 

But on page 17th you proceed thus: " Now 
suppose a nation in which there is not one ex- 
perimental, practical Christian, how would the 
saving knowledge of the truth first be communi- 
cated ? To convert souls is God's work, but he 
usually employs human instrumentality to teach 
them their lost condition and the remedy. We 
say usually, but not necessarily, for he can work 
with or without outward means/' 

Yes, Doctor, God has the power to work with- 
out means in the conversion of sinners, but does 
he do it? Did he ever do it in a single instance? 
or has he promised to do it under any circum- 
stances ? Now, so far as we can recollect, we 
have no example on record where any one was 
ever converted to God without "outward means." 
And the history of the church of Christ for 
eighteen centuries does not furnish us a single 
example of such conversion. By what authority, 
then, do you say that he u works with or without 
outward means" in converting men? Let us 
now look at a few examples of conversion, from 
the New Testament, and we shall see that God 
always employed what you are pleased to call 
lt outward means." 

When God undertook to convert the first 
Gentile that was converted to God, he employed 



58 LETTERS TO 

"outward means." He sent an angel to Corne- 
lius, not to tell him what he must do to be saved, 
but to tell him where he could get the informa- 
tion. " Send to Joppa for Simon Peter, and he 
shall tell the words, whereby thee and thy house 
shall be saved. " God could have converted 
Cornelius by a miracle, but he did not do it. He 
could have authorized the angel to have taught 
him his duty, but he did not do it, as he had not 
commissioned angels to preach the gospel. But 
Peter, the Apostle, must be sent for, who had 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven committed to 
him by the Savior, that the saving word might 
be heard from his mouth. You know the result. 

When the Lord desired to make an Apostle 
of the wicked Saul of Tarsus, he appeared to him 
by the way, but did not tell him what he must 
do, as this was not his plan of saving men, but 
he sent him into the city of Damascus, to hear 
the saving word from the mouth of the disciple 
Ananias. 

When he would introduce the gospel into 
Ethiopia, by the conversion of the eunuch, who 
was the high treasurer of the kingdom, he did 
not work without outward means, but sent 
Philip to "preach Jesus" to him. And the 
apostle Paul was commissioned to "go to the 
Gentiles, to open their eyes, and turn them from 
darkness to light and from the power of Satan to 
God. ' ' But let us put the apostle Paul upon the 



BISHOP MORRIS. 59 

witness' stand again, for a few moments; and 
you shall have the pleasure of asking such ques- 
tions as you choose. You know that he under- 
stands the matter well, and will give us definite 
answers. 

Bishop Morris — Bro.Paul, permit me to ask 
you a few questions upon a matter about which 
Bro. Mathes and I differ widely. We have 
agreed to leave the matter to you, as we both 
have confidence in your ability to answer cor- 
rectly. Will you be so kind, then, as to inform 
us whether, in your day, God converted men 
with or without means ? 

Apostle Paul — "I am not ashamed of the 
gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto 
salvation to every one who believes." 

Bishop Morris— I agree with you, Bro. Paul, 
that such is God's ordinary method of saving 
men, but have you not known many persons con- 
verted and saved by the immediate and personal 
operation of the Spirit, without the gospel or 
any other outward means? 

Apostle Paul— " It pleased God by the fool- 
ishness of preaching to save them that believe." 

Bishop Morris— Perhaps you are right in 
this, Bro. Paul, but I hope you will be a little 
more definite. Say then, if you please, have 
you not known persons receive faith by the 
direct operation of the Spirit, without the word 
of God? 



60 LETTERS TO 

Apostle Paul— " So then faith cometh by 
hearing, and hearing by the word of God." 

Bishop Morris— Bro. Paul, you seem not to 
fully understand my meaning. I will therefore 
try to be a little more definite in my questions. 
I will ask you, then, if in your travels in heathen 
lands you have not now and then met with faith- 
ful, praying Christians, who had never seen a 
preacher, nor heard the word in any way? 

Apostle Paul — u How then shall they call 
on him in whom they have not believed? And 
how shall they believe in him of whom they 
have not heard ? And how shall they hear with- 
out a preacher? And how shall they preach 
except they be sent?" 

Bishop Morris— Why, Bro. Paul, you sur- 
prise me ! I have accused Bro. Mathes here of 
being a Campbellite, and you agree with him 
precisely. Indeed, Bro. Paul, if you were not 
the " apostle Paul," I should say that you were 
a u Campbellite." 



BISHOP MORRIS. 61 



LETTER VI. 

The little organization — "What code shall they adopt — 
Let God do his own work — The contrast between 
the Jerusalem church and the "little organization" 
— Simple code based on the Bible — The Bible itself 
a perfect code — " Little organization " must agree 
on standards of laith — The standard of faith of the 
church of Christ was established in the beginning — 
Must be born again — The name Christian — Uncon- 
verted persons are received into the M. E. Church — 
Infant church membership — Infants not allowed to 
come to the Lord's table — The " capital hit." 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D.: 

My Dear Sir — I now come to your " little 
organization." On the 19th page of your little 
book, you suppose the case of a number of per- 
sons converted in a nation where, previously, 
there was no church, these being the first fruits 
of the nation to God. The number of converts 
making it necessary that they should be organ- 
ized into a church, (Methodist Episcopal Church, 
I presume you mean.) 

In such an attempt of course there must be 
some form about it, and some understanding as 
to the M terms of fellowship/' etc. You say : 
" When the converts are multiplied from units 
to tens, some kind of organization becomes nec- 
essary to maintain unity and peace. They may 
begin with a record of all the converted persons 



62 LETTERS TO 

proposed for membership. These form the nu- 
cleus of the church. The missionary pastor and 
his children in the gospel are of one heart and 
mind. To remain so, they must adopt some 
simple code based on the Bible, defining their 
faith and practice. They must agree on the 
scriptural standards of morality and godliness, 
to prevent future difficulty," etc. 

Now let us pause a moment and look at your 
" little organization. 5 ' As the nucleus of a 
Methodist Church, it may do very well, but in 
some respects it differs widely from the first 
Christian Church at Jerusalem, in the beginning. 
And you will not consider me uncharitable for 
showing you, and others, the contrast. But be- 
fore proceeding to do so, let me say to you, Doc- 
tor, that you have only given us the case of a 
"little organization," who have a missionary 
pastor, and of course such converts have not 
been gathered without " outward means." 

How then would you proceed in the other case 
which you say may occur? You say, in a nation 
where there are no converted persons, "God 
must convert some without any outward means." 
Very well, suppose this be done, how must they 
proceed to organize? and what "code" must 
they adopt? They have neither missionary pas- 
tor nor Bible, nor have they ever heard of the 
name of Jesus. If they pray, they must u call 
on him in whom they have not believed." And 



BISHOP MORRIS. 63 

if they have any faith, they must have " believed 
in him of whom they had not heard." And if 
they have heard, they must have "heard without 
a preacher." 

Now if converts can be made in this way, by 
the direct personal agency of the Holy Spirit, 
without any outward means, and an organization 
effected without the gospel, without a preacher, 
and without any outward instrumentality, or 
means of grace, as you teach that it can, could 
not God carry on the work in the same way to 
any extent, till the whole nation and all other 
nations would be converted ? If so, we might as 
well disband all our Bible and missionary socie^ 
ties at once, and let God do his own work, in his 
own way, without any " outward means " and 
without our assistance ! 

I will now proceed to point out s^nrie of the 
points of difference between your " little organi- 
zation" and the church of Christ, in the begin- 
ing. This may be a work of supererogation, as 
you do not claim that the M. E. Church is the 
church of Christ, or that it is even like it. Note 
the following particulars, then : 

1. You claim that your converts are made by 
the personal application of the benefits of re- 
demption, by the immediate operation of the 
Spirit* either with or without " outward means." 

But the converts made to Christianity in the 
beginning (day of Pentecost and onward) were 



64 LETTERS TO 

made by the use of the means which God had 
ordained, namely, the Gospel. 

2. The "simple code" adopted by your little 
organization, you say is u based on the Bible.' ' 
But the simple code adopted by the church of 
Christ, in the beginning, was the word of God 
itself; and not something based on it. You 
form your own code, which is of course human, 
and imperfect. While the code adopted by the 
church of Christ is divine, and furnished them 
by the great Head of the church, and is the 
" perfect law of liberty." 

3. You confess frankly that your code of laws 
and regulations are imperfect, and have to be 
modified, changed, or abolished altogether, when 
their practical workings are found not to be sat- 
isfactory. 

But the Christian code being perfect, like its 
Author, always works well, and can never be 
modified, changed or abolished during the media- 
torial reign of Christ. " If any man shall add to 
the words of prophecy of this book, God shall 
add to him the plagues that are written in the 
book ; and if any man shall take away from the 
words of the prophecy of this book, God shall 
take away his part of the book of life," etc. 

4. You say that your "little organization " 
"must define their faith," etc. But as the 
church of Christ adopts the "faith once deliv- 
ered to the saints," and the practice ordained by 



BISHOP MORRIS. 65 

Christ and his Apostles, she has no need to call 
a council, to fix definitions, and establish terms 
of fellowship, as the whole matter is clearly de- 
fined in the Lord's holy word. Jesus says, 
"teaching them [the baptized] to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you." 

5. You tell us that your little organization 
must also "agree upon standards of morality 
and godliness, to prevent future difficulty." 

But the church of Christ, taking the Bible 
alone as her infallible "standard of morality and 
godliness," has no trouble in establishing and 
agreeing upon u standards of morality and god- 
liness." Her standard was established in the 
beginning by the Holy Spirit, and needs no ad- 
justing. 

6. So far as you inform us, your converts are 
made without baptism, for you make no allusion 
to that holy ordinance. Not so the church of 
Christ. Into her communion none can enter 
constitutionally, without baptism. Jesus says 
in the great commission : " Go teach all nations, 
batizing [immersing] them into the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit." Again: "Except a man be born of 
water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the 
kingdom of God." 

Peter said to the inquiring multitude on the 
day of Pentecost, which was the true beginning 
3 



66 LETTERS TO 

day, when the reign of Christ as king began: 
" Repent, and be baptized every one of you in 
the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit." " Then they who gladly re- 
ceived the word were baptized, and the same 
day there were added unto them about three 
thousand souls." None added without immer- 
sion. 

7. The name of your " little organization " is 
"Methodist Episcopal Church." But the 
church of Christ wears the name of her illustri- 
ous founder, Christ. "And the disciples were 
first called Christians at Antioch." "Then 
Agrippa said to Paul, Almost thou persuadest 
me to be a Christian." Not a Methodist, a 
Baptist, a Presbyterian, or a Campbellite, but 
simply a Christian. Mark the difference, Doc- 
tor. Now let us hear Peter on the name; he 
says, "If any man suffer as a Christian, let 
him not be ashamed." But I think if a disciple 
of Christ should assume the sectarian name of 
Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Campbell- 
ite, and should suffer on that account, he would 
have great reason to be ashamed. 

Once more on the name. Christ is the hus- 
band, and the church is the bride ; therefore as 
a dutiful and chaste bride, she wears the name 
of her husband, and rejects all other names, as 
unsuited to her dignity. She is, therefore, sim- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 67 

ply called Christian, after Christ, the glorious 
husband and head of the church. 

8. In your church unconverted persons are 
received to membership. Persons who are only 
seeking — u desiring to flee from the wrath to 
come." And even disorderly persons, who 
have been excluded from your church for gross 
immorality and wickedness, can turn round im- 
mediately and join your church again, on pro- 
bation, without confessing the wrongs for which 
they were expelled. Several examples of this 
kind have fallen under my own observation. 

Not so the church of Christ. Jesus says, 
u Except ye be converted, and become as little 
children, ye shall in no case enter into the king- 
dom of heaven. " Again, " Except a man be 
born again, he can not see the kingdom of God." 
And Peter says, "Repent and be converted, 
every one of you, that your sins may be blotted 
out, when the times of refreshing shall come 
from the presence of the Lord." 

The prophet Jeremiah, in speaking of the 
church of Christ under the new covenant, says : 
u And it shall come to pass that every man 
shall not teach his neighbor, and every man his 
brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all shall 
know me, from the least of them to the greatest 
of them." Every member of Christ's church 
must "know the Lord." Not an unconverted 



68 LETTERS TO 

man or woman, nor an unconscious babe in the 
church. 

It was not so in the Jewish church, nor is it 
so in the M. E. Church, and many other mod- 
ern religious bodies. Infants born of Jewish 
parents were in the Jewish church by natural 
birth — a birth of flesh and blood. Being u born 
after the flesh," they were entitled to circum- 
cision on the eighth day, not to make them 
members of the Jewish church, but because they 
were members. And all such have to be " taught 
to know the Lord." So also it is in your church, 
Doctor ; the condition of membership as to in- 
fants is, "to be born after the flesh," one or 
both parents being members. If I understand 
you, infants are not sprinkled by your ministry 
to bring them into your church, but because they 
are already in it, upon the above condition. 
This being so, you have many thousands in your 
church who are recognized as members in some 
sense, who do not u know the Lord," and whom 
you must teach, "saying, Know the Lord." 

9. In the M. E. Church, thousands who are 
recognized as members in some sense, are not 
permitted to come to the Lord's table. But in 
the church of Christ all are not only permitted 
to come to the Lord's table, but commanded to 
do so. Jesus says to them all, u Do this in re- 
membrance of me." 

Let these nine points of difference suffice for 



BISHOP MORRIS. 69 

the present. Other points of comparison will 
come up, as we progress in our review. 

On page 22d you discuss the u terms of mem- 
bership in the M. E. Church." You say : u Our 
fathers who gave us this outline of our present 
system of Methodist discipline, made a capital 
hit when they adopted the rule requiring a pro- 
bation of at least six months prior to regular 
membership, a rule still enforced in all cases, 
except such as bring letters of recommendation 
from orthodox sister churches as worthy mem- 
bers. The condition of admission on trial is, ; a 
desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be 
saved from sin.' " 

You have well named this a "hit," and you 
think it a "capital hit." It has worked well, 
and you have retained it, not because it was of 
God, but of the fathers, and its practical work- 
ing satisfactory. You do not claim divine au- 
thority for this hit, but give the fathers of Meth- 
odism all the credit of its discovery. The Bible 
furnishes no sort of countenance to it. John 
Wesley made the u hit." He guessed at it, and 
made the hit, and it has proved that Mr. Wes- 
ley was a good judge of human nature. It was 
indeed " a capital hit ! " 

I need not tell one of your experience and 
Scripture knowledge, that there was no such ar- 
rangement, or hit, in the church of Christ, in 
the beginning. None were received into her 



70 LETTERS TO 

fellowship but those who were converted and 
saved from their sins. None were received on 
six months' trial ! All who were received at all, 
were taken into full fellowship and were expect- 
ed to " continue steadfast in the Apostles' doc- 
trine, in fellowship, in breaking of bread, and in 
the prayers." Is it not wonderful, Dr. Morris, 
that the Apostles, under the inspiration and 
guidance of the Holy Spirit, did not make this 
* capital hit? " of six months' probation, in or- 
der to membership in the church. If they had 
made this hit, we should no doubt have some ac- 
count of it in the following cases, where persons 
joined the church, who did not bring letters 
of commendation from other orthodox sister 
churches. 

When Saul of Tarsus was converted, he went 
up into the city of Damascus and immediately 
commenced preaching the glorious gospel of 
Christ. No six months' probation in his case ; 
he was fully converted, and a full member the 
very first day. 

The three thousand that were immersed on 
the day of Pentecost, and added to them, were 
not probationers, on six months' trial ; but were 
taken into full membership that very day. In 
proof of this we are told by Luke that "they 
continued steadfastly in the Apostles' dcctrine, 
and the fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 71 

and in the prayers ; and the Lord added to them 
daily the saved." 

There never was a more favorable opportunity 
to make the capital hit than the day of Pente- 
cost. It was the beginning day, and Jerusalem 
was the beginning place. The Apostles were 
the divinely authorized ambassadors of heaven, 
called, qualified and sent by Jesus himself. And 
in a special manner had Jesus given the " keys 
of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter, and said 
to him, "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, 
shall be loosed in heaven ; and whatsoever thou 
shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven." 
Peter stood up with the eleven, holding the keys 
of the kingdom of heaven, to bind and loose, 
and before him were three thousand believers, 
all anxious to u flee from the wrath to come, and 
to be saved from their sins." They possessed 
all the qualifications of probationers, according 
to your rules in such cases. 

If Peter had understood and approved of this 
capital hit of yours, he certainly would have 
applied it on that occasion ; and if he had, then 
we should have felt bound to have used it also. 
If he had said to the three thousand inquirers, 
" If you desire to flee from the wrath to come, 
and to be saved from your sins, you can join us 
on six months' trial, and if your moral deport- 
ment is right, you can then become full members, 
if you choose; " then you would have some au- 



72 LETTERS TO 

thority. Bat you know that he did no such 
thing. They said, "Men and brethren, what 
shall we do?' 7 And Peter answered aud said 
unto them, u Repent and be baptized, [immers- 
ed,] every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, [eis) in order to the remission of sins, 
and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." 
(See Acts ii.) 

Again : Cornelius and his house were con- 
verted before they joined the church. Corne- 
lius was the first Gentile converted, and if this 
capital hit, which you admit your fathers made, 
had been of God, we should certainly have had 
an example of it in the house of Cornelius the 
Gentile. But so far from it, they were baptized 
in the name of Jesus Christ, and taken into full 
fellowship the first day. And without introduc- 
ing other examples, I affirm positively that the 
law of the Lord makes no provision for taking 
into his church men and women on six months 7 
trial, ^probationers, upon the condition of their 
"desiring to flee from the wrath to come, and 
to be saved from sin," or upon any other condi- 
tion. The primitive church took into her bosom 
no unconverted seekers. " They shall know me, 
from the least of them to the greatest of them." 

But, " Honor to whom honor is due." You 
say the "Fathers made a capital hit" etc. 
Let them have the honor of it. It is of the 
fathers. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 73 



LETTER VII. 

Probation — Probation more fully considered — Condi- 
tions of membership on trial — Not of God. but of the 
fathers — It is unscriptural — It is impracticable, as a 
mere human expedient — It nullifies the law of the 
Lord — Makes void the gospel of Christ — It shuts out 
of the church those whom God has received — It opens 
the door wide for imposition — The gospel plan much 
more simple — The conditions of full membership — 
The recommendation of a leader — Baptism — It is a 
human institution — Inskip's testimony — Examina- 
tion before the congregation — The infant members 
of M. E. Church can give no assurance — Sponsors 
— Godfathers and godmothers — No example of the 
baptism of a single infant in New Testament. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — We now come to the u condi- 
tion of membership on trial," which your fathers 
gave you, and which you still retain. These 
conditions you state correctly thus: U A desire 
to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved 
from sin." 

And you tell us that this desire to become 
available must be evidenced in three ways : first, 
by doing no harm ; by avoiding evil of every 
kind, etc. Secondly, by doing good, etc. Thirdly, 
by attending upon all the ordinances of God, etc. 
And you add, " If the pastor knows the candi- 
date to come up to this standard, he can admit 
him at once on trial." 



74 LETTERS TO 

Now my dear Bishop, you will permit me, in 
all candor and kindness, to examine this peculi- 
arity of your very peculiar system. In my last 
letter, I noticed it as an item of difference, sim- 
ply, between your church and the church of 
Christ; but I wish to look more narrowly into 
it, that we may understand its practical work- 
ings. 

This is certainly one of your peculiarities, as 
1 find nothing analogous to it in any other relig- 
ious system of modern times ; and you do not 
pretend to find an example for it in the primitive 
church, or to have any divine authority for it ; 
for you say the fathers made it, and it was a 
''capital hit." Such a thing as a " probation- 
ary membership" was wholly unknown in the 
church of Christ in the beginning. The idea 
seems to have originated with Mr. Wesley, the 
father of Methodism. And considered as a mere 
stroke of human policy, it was a capital hit. 
But as it lays claim to no divine precept or ex- 
ample, we must look at it only in the light of 
human reason. 

As it is of the fathers, and not of God, you 
will admit that we may lawfully examine it as a 
mere human institution, and that we have just 
as good a right to judge of it as the fathers had, 
who made and adopted it, as a peculiarity of the 
Methodist system, or as you have, who main- 
tain it, as a "capital hit." 



BISHOP MORRIS. 75 

I object to the whole scheme of probationary 
membership. 1st. Because it is unscriptural. 
Not a shadow of a shade of evidence of any thing 
of the kind can be produced from the New Tes- 
tament. 2d. Because it is impracticable, even 
considered as a mere human expedient. As no 
one who is a mere seeker, possessing all the con- 
ditions of probationary membership — that is, 
" a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to 
be saved from sin " — but who is not a Christian, 
does or can u attend upon all the ordinances of 
God." No Christian, enjoying the evidence of 
pardon and the hope of heaven, comforted by 
the Holy Spirit, can do any more than this. 
Bishop Morris himself, with all his knowledge 
and religious experience, can do no more than 
11 attend upon all the ordinances of God." How 
then, Doctor, can you expect an unconverted 
sinner to do it? He may when "men can gather 
grapes of thorns or figs of thistles! " 

3d. I object to it because it sets aside the law 
of the Lord, and makes void the gospel of Christ, 
The law of the Lord admits all penitent believers, 
who " desire to flee from the wrath to come, and 
to be saved from sin," to an immediate union 
with the church of Christ, through obediegce to 
the gospel. Not as mere outside seekers, but as 
members of the body of Christ, and as children 
of God. Witness the three thousand on the 
day of Pentecost, the jailor, Lydia, Saul of Tar- 



76 LETTERS TO 

sus, the Samaritans, Corinthians, and Cornelius 
the Gentile. It makes void the gospel of Christ, 
because it tells the sinner that he need not come 
now into the enjoyment of pardon and the fel- 
lowship of the church, but may safely wait until 
he has served a probation of six months. 

While all the gracious invitations of the gos- 
pel are, u now," " to-day," " Now is the accepted 
time/' not six months hence! Dr. Morris, will 
you please inform us what relation your proba- 
tioners sustain to your church during their six 
months of probation ? You tell us they are not 
members, and can not be, in the full sense of 
that term, until the six months of probation are 
over. Suppose the probationer should die before 
his six months is out, he would die out of your 
church ; then what becomes of him ? If you 
say he would be accepted of God, and received 
into glory, then you admit that your rule upon 
this subject is wrong, as it shuts out of your 
church those whom God accepts as his children. 

But you admit that these probationers are 
sinners, and unconverted. They only "desire 
to flee from the wrath to come." They are not 
saved from their sins, but desire to be; how 
then -can they be saved during their probation, 
if they should die ? You will not say that they 
are saved in their sins. If not, they must be 
saved, if saved at all, by a miracle ; which is 



BISHOP MORRIS. 77 

unreasonable and in opposition to the teachings 
of the Holy Spirit. 

How different to your practice was the pro- 
ceedings of the inspired Apostles. When the 
anxious multitude inquired, u what must we do? " 
(see Acts ii. 37, 38,) they certainly gave good evi- 
dence of a u desire to flee from the wrath to come, 
and to be saved from sin." If Bishop Morris 
had been in Peter's place, at that time, I sup- 
pose he would most likely have answered them 
in some such words as these : " Come forward 
to the anxious seat, and we will pray for you, 
and perhaps God will have mercy upon you and 
pardon your sins ; and then you who get religion, 
and you who get no religion, can become proba- 
tionary members of our church, for six months 
on trial, provided you evince 'a desire to flee 
from the wrath to come, and to be saved from 
sin,' and at the end of these six months' trial, 
if you still evince such a. desire, we will take 
you into full fellowship, though you may have 
no religion." 

But Peter and the rest of the Apostles, not 
understanding this " capital hit" of your fa- 
thers, admitted the whole three thousand to 
baptism and full membership and fellowship in 
the church the very same day. That they were 
all in fellowship, is evident from a declaration of 
Luke in the same chapter. Referring to those 
persons added on that day, he says, "And they 



75 LETTERS TO 

continued steadfastly in the fellowship," etc. 
They were in u the fellowship," or they could 
not have continued in it. 

4th. Once more ; I object to this rule of your 
church, because, in my judgment, it opens wide 
the door for imposition ; the very thing, I pre- 
sume, that it was intended to guard. One of 
your members, perhaps a preacher, commits 
some grievous offence against the peace and 
dignity of your church. He is brought be- 
fore your tribunals, and convicted of the sins 
charged against him. He is admonished, but 
refuses to repent and acknowledge the sins 
proved against him, but continues to deny 
them in the face of positive testimony* and he 
is therefore expelled from your church, as un- 
worthy of your fellowship, to be to you u as a 
heathen man and a publican." Then, sir, there 
is nothing in your system to prevent such pro- 
fane man from joining again the very same day 
on probation ; provided he "evinces a desire to 
flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from 
sin. " And some have availed themselves of this 
rule of yours, to my certain knowledge, to the 
great chagrin of the members generally, but it 
could not be helped. 

How much more simple the good old gospel 
plan, to admit all into full fellowship in the 
church immediately who believe the gospel, re- 
pent of their sins, confess Jesus before men, and 



BISHOP MORRIS. 79 

are baptized u into the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And if 
such person sin, so as to justify the church in 
withdrawing her fellowship from him, he can 
only be restored by repentance, confession and 
prayer. 

CONDITIONS OF FULL MEMBERSHIP. 

You say, "The conditions of full membership 
after probation, are three : First, a recommen- 
dation of a leader, with whom the candidate has 
met at least six months on trial, who has every 
opportunity to know his religious state, daily walk , 
and general bearing. Secondly, he must be con- 
secrated to God in baptism, either in infancy or 
adult age, this being the initiating ordinance in- 
to the visible church of Christ. Thirdly, he must 
en examination by the minister in charge, before 
the church, give satisfactory assurance both of 
the correctness of his faith and his willingness to 
observe and keep the rules of the church. " And 
you add, " These conditions are few and simple, 
but indispensable; and taken altogether they show 
conclusively that our church is at least as well 
guarded against imposition in the reception of 
members as any other church." 

If you mean to compare your church with other 
modern churches, which are also governed by hu- 
man laws, rules and regulations, like itself, I am 
willing to admit the correctness of the compari- 



80 LETTERS TO 

son, and the conclusion you draw from it. But 
if by the expression, u any other church," you 
aim to include the primitive church, governed by 
the perfect law of the Lord, and those occupy- 
ing the same grounds now, having the same faith 
and practice, and governed by the same divine 
code of laws, and wearing the same divine name, 
"Christian," then I must deny your conclusion — 
you are not as well guarded against imposition. 
But I desire to make a few remarks upon your 
conditions of " full membership." 

" The recommendation of a leader with whom 
the candidate has met at least six months on 
trial." 

This first condition establishes beyond a doubt 
the fact that your church is peculiar, and unlike 
the church of Christ. Where did the Apostles 
ever require such recommendation of a leader ? 
What leaders bad lived and held class meetings 
six months before the day of Pentecost, so that 
they might recommend the three thousand con- 
verts who were added to the church the same 
day ? These converts had not been giving evi- 
dence for the previous six months that they "de- 
sired to flee from the wrath to come, and to be 
saved from sin ; " but on the contrary, only fifty 
days before, many of them had participated in 
the murder of the Lord Jesus Christ, saying, 
" his blood be upon us and upon our children." 
Yet they "gladly received the word, and were 



BISHOP MORRIS. 81 

baptized, and the same day were added to them 
about three thousand souls." 

Your rule, or first condition of membership, 
would have compelled the " three thousand " to 
have joined on trial merely, and to have waited 
at least six months, in order to have procured 
the necessary recommendation from their class 
leaders, so that they might have come into the 
church in full fellowship, as full members! But 
the church of Christ had no condition requiring 
a probation of six months, and so they were ad- 
mitted at once. With what leader had the eu- 
nuch met six months, before Philip baptized him 
and received him into full fellowship? None. 
Can you furnish me with a single example where 
any of the converts made to Christianity by the 
Apostles were required to bring "a recommen- 
dation of a leader with whom they had met for 
at least six months? " You know, Doctor, that 
you can not furnish an example, and of course 
you will not try ; and yet you say that " these 
conditions are indispensable ! " Indispensable 
they .may be to admission into your church as 
full members ; but the church of the living God 
has no such conditions. 

Your second condition is " baptism either in 
infancy or adult age." But why, Doctor, do you 
make baptism, either in the infant or adult, a 
condition of full membership ? Because you say, 



82 LETTERS TO 

it is the "initiating ordinance into the visible 
church of Christ." 

This is a very good reason, provided the Meth- 
odist Church is the church of Christ. But this, 
as I have proved in a former letter, you do not 
claim, nor does your Discipline nor any of your 
prominent writers claim it. Mr. J. L. Inskip, 
one of your prominent authors, in his book on 
Methodism, on 65th page, says of your polity: 

"A more wise or better arranged system of re- 
ligious and moral enterprise, could not have been 
conceived. Of course, like all other human in- 
stitutions, it has defects and imperfections. " The 
reader will please note particularly the expression, 
in the above quotation, u like all other human 
institutions." According, then, to this oracle of 
Methodism, the whole system of Methodistic 
polity, which you, Bishop Morris, defend and 
extol so highly, is a mere human institution, 
wise and well arranged. 

But allow me to ask you, Bishop, if baptism 
be the initiating ordinance into the visible church, 
can any one get into it who has not been bap- 
tized? And if infants are entitled to baptism, 
as you claim, are they not thereby initiated into 
the visible church of Christ ? And are they not, 
as a matter of course, entitled to full member- 
ship? If so — and I think you will admit the 
correctness of the conclusion — then what be- 
comes of your "six months' trial," and u recom- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 83 

mendation of a leader" with whom they must 
have met at least six months on trial? 

And worse still; you do not even permit your 
infant members to "attend upon all the ordi- 
nances of God." You do not permit them to 
come to the Lord's table, which you will cer- 
tainly admit is one of the ordinances of God, 
and is enjoined upon every member of Christ's 
body, u from the least to the greatest of them." 
If the Lord's supper is an ordinance of God, and ' 
enjoined upon all the members of his church, it 
must be the duty of all to partake of it. If you 
are correct, then, in making baptism a condition 
of full membership, and infants have a right to 
it, as you say, then they become full members 
the moment they are baptized, and entitled to all 
the privileges of the church, and all the ordi- 
nances of the house of God, of which they are 
now full members. Whoever, then, would stand 
in the way and hinder these babes, (if they are 
initiated into the visible church by baptism, as 
you teach,) from partaking of the emblems of 
the broken body and shed blood of the Lord, 
are guilty of a great sin. If you admit them to 
baptism, you can not reject them from the Lord's 
table, as both go together. What answerest 
thou, Doctor? 

Your third and last condition of full member- 
ship is, also, one for which you have neither 
precept nor example in the word of God. When 



84 LETTERS TO 

or where did the Apostles ever examine a candi- 
date for membership before the whole congrega- 
tion, and require him to give u assurances of the 
correctness of his faith/' and his willingness to 
keep and observe all the rules of the church, 
before they would receive him into full mem- 
bership? Never! nowhere! They simply re- 
quired penitent believers to confess their faith 
in Christ, and upon such confession they bap- 
tized them and received them into the fellowship 
of the church, as thou knowest very well. 

Will Bishop Morris be so kind as to inform 
us how the infant members of his church can 
"give assurances of the correctness of their 
faith, " when they have no faith, correct or in- 
correct ? 

These infants, according to your peculiar sys- 
tem, have been initiated into your church by 
baptism, and consequently are in full fellowship. 
But how did they, at their initiation, give you 
assurance of their willingness to observe and to 
keep all the rules and regulations of your 
church ? They know nothing about your rules. 
Or will you fall back upon the old exploded no- 
tion of "sponsors," "godfathers and godmoth- 
ers, " to answer for the babes? I see no other 
chance for you. But you will admit that this 
was a human contrivance, and a very profane 
one at that. For it often happened, in time 
past, and even now in the Episcopal Church, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 85 

and the Ptoman Catholic Church, that wicked 
and profane men and women stand and answer 
for the child, as "godfathers and godmothers." 
No, you will not contend for this. 

Well, then, what will you do with the case ? 
Will you say that infants are not initiated into 
the church by baptism, as full members ? Then 
you admit that infants are not scriptural sub- 
jects of baptism, and of course that you have no 
scriptural right to baptize them. But whatever 
may be your position upon this point, one thing 
you know, Doctor, and that is, that you can not 
produce a single example in the New Testament 
of the baptism of a single infant, or of the re- 
ception of a single infant into the church of 
Christ. It is human tradition, not of God, but 
of the fathers. 



86 LETTERS TO 



LETTER VIII. 

BILL OF RIGHTS. 

Persons joining the M. E. Church acquire right — An 
interest in all the chuch property, etc. — It amounts 
to twenty millions of dollars — Each member's inter- 
est in church property about $20 — Deeds to church 
property, how made — Religion of Jesus oners no 
worldly inducements — All Christian privileges were 
fully enjoyed long before the M. E. Church was 
organized — The class meetings — Love feasts — The 
Christian "feast of charity" — Infancy of Method- 
ism, etc. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D.: 

My Dear Sir — We now come to the consid- 
eration of your " bill of rights." On the 27th 
page of your little book you say : 

u By becoming a member of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, you acquire rights which you 
never had before, and never could have possessed 
without such membership." 

Have we the right to worship Gcd, as his 
word and our conscience may dictate, without 
becoming members of the M. E. Church? We 
have. Has any one but a Methodist a right to 
pray? Yes, all true believers have a right to 
cry "Abba, Father." Have we the right to obey 
the Savior and enjoy "the love of God shed 
abroad in our hearts" without joining the M. E. 
Church? We have. Have we a right to the 



BISHOP MORRIS. 87 

Spirit of adoption, without being Methodists? 
We have. In a word, have we not all the rights, 
privileges and immunities of citizenship in the 
church of Jesus Christ, and access to all the 
means of grace that God has ordained, for our 
spiritual life, growth and improvement, in all 
that pertains to life and godliness, without be- 
coming members of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church ? Certainly we have ; and [ feel confi- 
dent that you, my dear Bishop, will most cheer- 
fully admit it. There were no Methodists in 
the world for some five thousand seven 
hundred years after the creation of the world, 
and yet those who obeyed God were blessed and 
saved. 

The Christian church, from the day of Pen- 
tecost till the inauguration of Methodism in the 
eighteenth century, enjoyed all the means of 
grace, and all the ordinances ordained by Jesus 
Christ, and as Peter expresses it, they had " all 
things that pertain to life and godlincss. ,, And 
yet they were not members of your church, as 
there was no such church in existence during 
all that period. 

What wonderful "rights," then, Doctor, have 
you to offer in the M. E. Church that were not 
fully enjoyed by the primitive Christians ; or 
that can not be enjoyed now, just as well and as 
completely, out of the M. E. Church, as in it? 
You say : 



85 LETTERS TO 

4 'And first, you secure an interest in all the 
church property, which, in houses of worship, 
parsonages, cemeteries, and institutions of learn- 
ing, with their ground plats, amount to at least 
twenty millions of dollars." 

Well, we must own up, I suppose, that no one 
has any interest in your vast church property, 
but the members of your church. In some 
neighborhoods, villages and towns, appeals have 
been made to the liberality of the outside com- 
munity, and members of other sects, and to our 
brotherhood, to aid in building your houses of 
worship ; and they have done so, under the im- 
pression that they would have some interest in 
them ; but they have generally found out their 
mistake after the house was built. 

You claim, I believe, to have a million of 
members. Then according to your statement 
above, each member has an acquired right to an 
interest in your church property to the amount 
of twenty dollars ! Now I ask you, in all 
humility, my dear Bishop, in bringing this item 
forward in the manner you have, does it not 
look a little, just a little, like offering a premium 
of twenty dollars in property to any one who 
will join your Methodist Episcopal Church ? 
It certainly does look a little that way ; but 
still I do not charge you with such a design. 
But let us look a little after this property ques- 
tion. 



BISHOP MORRIS. «y 

It is not generally known, perhaps, that all 
your deeds for church property are so made to 
the M. E. Church in general, that if every mem- 
ber of the church in any particular locality were 
to change their religious views, and as a church 
without a dissenting voice should agree to take 
the word of God as their only guide and direc- 
tory from earth to heaven, and should unani- 
mously, class leader, preacher and all, take the 
name '"Christian," as given by divine authority 
to the disciples of Christ, first at Antioch, and 
which was worn exclusively by them for many 
centuries — I say, if they should do all this 
unanimously, the Methodist Episcopal Church 
could come from other localities and take pos- 
session of their meeting house, and turn the 
real owners of the property, who had built the 
house with their own labor and money, out of 
doors ! 

Therefore, to retain this acquired right in 
church property, to even the twenty dollars, the 
initiated must continue to profess the doctrines 
of the M. E. Church, as set forth in the twenty- 
five articles of her Discipline, and conform to 
her peculiar rules and regulations. Thus you 
see, Doctor, that in your church all progress in 
the knowledge of the truth is defeated, and you 
become stereotyped in the doctrines and tradi- 
tions of your fathers. 

But after all, Doctor, is not this rather an ap- 



90 LETTERS TO 

peal to denominational pride, and to love of 
worldly aggrandizement? Is ifc not, in effect, 
saying: We are a rich and powerful denomina- 
tion. We are very numerous, and own by deed 
at least twenty millions of property. By uniting 
with us, as a member, you will become a partner 
and joint heir in this vast inheritance of the M. 
E. Church. 

The religion of Jesus offers no inducements 
. >f a worldly nature to any one to become a 
Christian. The Lord himself was poor, so poor 
that he had not where to lay his head. And 
he distinctly told his disciples that they must 
forsake all and follow him. Their houses and 
lands had to be given up, yea, and their own 
lives also, if the cause required the sacrifice. 

Paul in his preaching talked not of worldly 
honor, or riches ; but of stripes and imprison- 
ments, chains and dungeons, poverty and wretch- 
edness in this world ; but a crown of glory in 
the world to come, with everlasting life. But 
he never boasted of the wealth of the church, 
in meeting houses, cemeteries, institutions of 
learning, ground plats and parsonages, as an in- 
ducement to persons to join the church. He 
was so poor himself that he u had no certain 
dwelling place." And looking over the whole 
ground, he decided that " the love of money is 
the root of all evil." And the Lord said to his 
disciples, " Lay not up for yourselves treasures 



BISHOP MORRIS. 91 

on earth." But I will press this matter no fur- 
ther at present, as I suppose you only mentioned 
your wealth incidentally, and did not really in- 
tend to offer a premium in church property to 
induce persons to join your church. But let us 
now hear the second item in your " bill of 
rights." You say: 

.*' Secondly, by becoming a member of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, you have acquired 
a full share in all her privileges. This includes 
an interest in her sympathies, her prayers, and 
her ample means of religious instruction and 
encouragement ; in her ordinances, including the 
holy eucharist, and in her powerful ministry 
and pastoral oversight," etc. 

On this point I need say but little, as you will 
admit that Christian sympathy, prayers, and 
ample means of religious instruction and encour- 
agement, the ordinances of the house of God, 
including the Lord's supper, or u eucharist," as 
you term it, with the ministry of the word and 
pastoral oversight, can all be acquired and fully 
enjoyed out of the Methodist Church ; as all 
these rights and privileges were fully enjoyed by 
Christians for seventeeu centuries before the M. 
E. Church had an existence ; and of course noth- 
ing of importance would be gained by joining 
your church, which can not be enjoyed as fully 
out of it. 

Do not Presbyterians, Baptists, Congrega- 



92 LETTERS TO 

tionalists, and all other " evangelical sects/' as 
you call them, enjoy all the rights and privileges 
which you enumerate in your " secondly ? " You 
will admit it, I am sure ; and I think you will 
admit also that the Christian Church, who reject 
all party names, creeds and confessions of faith, 
of human manufacture, and who takes the Bi- 
ble alone as her rule of faith and manners, and 
the name "Christian," as the name given to 
the disciples of Christ in the beginning — J say, 
you will admit that they too enjoy all these privi- 
leges and rights as fully as Methodists, except it 
be in your ''powerful ministry." And I am 
sure that you will not deny that the Christian 
Church has a u powerful ministry," who in point 
of talents, learning and piety will lose nothing 
in comparison with the ministry of the M. E. 
Church. 

But you further say to your people, under this 
head : u You have all the privileges found in any 
other evangelical church, with class meetings 
and love feasts into the bargain, two choice 
means of religious improvement, at once profita- 
able and delightful." 

Now, Dr. Morris, I admit that you have 
brought forward something new ; and if they 
are what you say, " profitable and delightful," it 
might be well enough for everybody to acquire 
the right of using them, by joining your church. 
You admit above all that the Christian privi- 






BISHOP MORRIS. 93 

leges to be found in your church, can also be 
found in all other evangelical churches, except 
the two last named, which you tell us that the 
members of your church u get into the bargain j" 
that is, " class meeting and love feast." Let us 
then look at these two means of u religious im- 
provement," and see what they amount to. 

Class Meeting. — Mr. Inskip, in his book on 
Methodism, p. 193, says of the class meeting: 
"And so soon as we become willing to dispense 
with this feature of our system, our decline and 
downfall will certainly and rapidly follow. This 
is one of the ancient landmarks. And it would 
be almost sacrilege to remove or deface it." 

From this it is evident that the class meeting 
is regarded of vital importance to the very exist- 
ence of Methodism. And yet, my dear Bishop, 
Mr. Wesley knew that such an institution as a 
class meeting was never heard of in the primi- 
tive church. It is entirely destitute of Scripture 
warrant. Or will you say, as Mr. Wesley did, 
when he was called on for his Scripture authority 
for it. He answered : " There is none against 
it." Nor does the Scripture in so many words 
condemn the use of instrumental music in our 
worshiping assemblies ; but shall we conclude, 
therefore, that it is scriptural and right? Infant 
sprinkling is not once named or alluded to in the 
Bible, and of course we find no Scripture in so 
many words, and by name forbidding the prac- 



94 LETTERS TO 

tice ; and Dr. Clarke regards this as a strong 
argument, if not the very strongest in its favor ! 
Class meetings are of human device — not of God, 
but of the fathers of Methodism. It may be, 
and no doubt is, a good human expedient, to 
keep Methodism alive, as Mr. Inskip assures 
us that it would starve and die without it. But 
the Christian church depends not upon class 
meetings, or any other human device, to give it 
success. But of " class meetings 7 ' I shall have 
more to say hereafter. 

Love Feasts. — Your love feasts, like your 
class meeting policy, has no Scripture warrant, 
and is therefore, a mere human expedient. I 
believe your love feasts are generally observed at 
the close of your quarterly conferences, yearly 
conferences, and other great occasions. At such 
times, I believe it is your custom to issue tickets 
to such persons as the elders and preachers think 
proper to invite. These invitations, I believe, 
extend, not only to members of your church in 
good standing and full fellowship, but also to 
well-wishers of the cause of Methodism, though 
they may not be professors of religion at all ! 
When the hour arrives, the congregation thus 
brought together, sit down together, while bread 
and water are passed round, each one taking a 
bite of the bread, and a sip of the water This 
is one of the two delightful means of religious 
instruction, which " every Methodist gets into 






BISHOP MORRIS. 95 

the bargain," as you inform us! Bat, Doctor, 
do not some other sects, besides the M. E. 
Church, use the "love feast" and the " class 
meeting" too? So it seems that these sects en- 
joy these " delightful means of religious instruc- 
tion," without joining your church. 

But you are perhaps ready to say that you 
have some Scripture at least, for the "love feast " 
as the apostle Jude says of certain ungodly 
teachers. "They are spots in your feasts of 
charity;" (Jude 12.) We have the testimony 
of the learned, that there was something called 
" feasts of charity," or "love feasts," in the prim- 
itive church, which were continued up to the 
fourth century. But you will not contend that 
these "love feasts," or "love suppers," as Ter- 
tullian calls them, were any thing like your "love 
feasts." 

The great Dr. Benson, one of your principal 
commentators, says of these ancient "love sup- 
pers": 

" They were called love feasts, or suppers, be- 
cause the richer Christians brought in a variety 
of provisions to feed the poor, the fatherless, the 
widows, and strangers, and ate with them to 
show their love to them." 

Now, Doctor, if you will change the character 
of your "love feasts," to something like the 
above, and make it a real feast of love, to the 
poor, the widow and the orphan, and the stran- 



96 LETTERS TO 

ger, then I will cease to oppose it. What say 
you? 

In giving us the third item in your " bill of 
rights," you say : 

" Thirdly, these acquired rights are secured to 
you on such a firm constitutional basis, that no 
earthly power can deprive you of them, till you 
willfully forfeit them by disobedience to, or some 
personal violation of, the rules of the church." 

That is, your members acquire the right to 
stay in the M. E. Church, as long as they con- 
form to your peculiar rules. You admit that in 
the " infancy of Methodism," the preacher had« 
absolute power over the laity, and could dispos- 
sess them of all their privileges, at his pleasure, 
and without the form of a trial. But it was 
found not to be safe for the members, and the 
power was taken from him : and now the laymen 
are allowed a trial before their " peers." 

Very well, Doctor, that was a good step in 
the path of reformation. Go on, my dear sir, 
reforming your peculiar system, till you have got 
back to primitive ground, and a "pure speech" 
Then, indeed, all that is really peculiar to Meth- 
odism will be laid aside as useless to the Chris- 
tian, and the word of God alone will take its 
proper place as your only guide from earth to 
heaven. If we take all the human systems of re- 
ligion in Christendom, and examine them in the 
light of divine truth, we should no doubt find 



BISHOP MORRIS. 97 

many truths taken from the Bible, in all of them, 
and a great many things peculiar to each. 
Whatever, therefore, is true in any of them, is 
not 'peculiar to them, but divine. And whatever 
is peculiar to Mechodism, Baptism, Presbyte- 
rianism, Episcopalianism, or any humanism, is 
not of God, but of men, and therefore not essen- 
tial to salvation, and may be safely laid aside as 
useless lumber. 

We must necessarily pass over much that you 
have said, as the limit we have set to these let- 
ters will not admit of a more extended examina- 
tion. 

4 



LETTERS TO 



LETTER IX. 

THE MINISTRY. 



Three agents standing between the pastor and his 
flock — Deacons — Class leaders and class meetings 
unknown in the beginning of Methodism — Rise of 
Methodism — Mr. Wesley an unconverted man for 
near ten years after he began to preach Methodism 
— Whence came class meetings? — Captain Foy the 
lather of class meetings — It is a prudential regula- 
tion — A hard question — Exhorters and local preach- 
ers — Presiding elders — An experiment of seventy- 
four years' standing — The Bishop's cabinet — Better 
proof than age — The experiment has proved success- 
ful — Romanism has been successful — Mahomet and 
Joe Smith have both been successful with their de- 
lusions — We must have something better — A " thus 
eaith the Lord " — The divine pattern of a church 
shown at Jerusalem. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D.: 

My Dear Sir — On the 38th page of your lit- 
tle book, you speak of the ministry of your 
church on this wise : 

" Between the members and pastors there are 
other active agents for good : class leaders, ex- 
horters and local preachers." 

From your statement it appears that these 
three classes of agents, or ministers, stand "be- 
tween the members and their pastors," and of 
course they are above the members. It was not 
so from the beginning. In the primitive church 






BISHOP MORRIS. 99 

no agents were placed over the members, be- 
tween them and their pastors. They had their 
deacons, but they were not placed over their 
brethren, but rather under them, as "servants" 
of the congregation, and by virtue of their office 
they performed no pastoral work. They had 
charge of the temporal affairs of the church, and 
served tables. (Acts vi. ) Those of them who 
used the office of a deacon well, " obtained a 
good degree, and great boldness in the faith." 
And two of them, at least, became powerful 
preachers, as Philip and Stephen. But preach- 
ing constituted no part of their business, as 
deacons. 

And even in the beginning of Methodism, 
such agents as class leaders and class meetings 
were wholly unknown. You are no doubt well 
posted in the history of your church, and of 
course you need not be told that at the first rise 
of the Methodist Society it consisted of only 
four young men, and even these were uncon- 
verted! They met occasionally of evenings, to 
read the Greek classics and converse together. 
Tnis was in Oxford, England, in 1729. Mr. 
Wesley's own words in reference to this matter 
are the following : 

M On Monday, May 1st, our little Society be. 
gan in London ; but it may be observed, that 
the first rise of Methodism, so called, was in 
November, 1729, when four of us met together 



100 LETTERS TO 

at Oxford." And Mr. Wesley further says, 
" The second rise of Methodism was at Savan- 
nah, Ga., in 1736, where twenty or thirty persons 
met at my house." And again he says, "The 
third rise of Methodism was in London, May 1, 
1737, when forty or fifty of us agreed to meet 
together every Wednesday evening, in order to a 
free conversation, begun and ended with singing 
and prayer." — Wesley's Works ^ Vol. 7, p. 348. 

Here we have the history of the rise and pro- 
gress of your peculiar system of Methodism, 
for near ten years, embracing three distinct 
risings ; yet there is no reference made to class 
leaders, or class meetings, simply because the 
thing did not then exist. And what is very re- 
markable in this matter, is the fact that Mr. 
John Wesley, the founder and father of Method- 
ism, was all this time an unconverted sinner ! 
According to his own testimony, he was only 
converted to God on the 4th day of May, 1738, 
near ten years after he commenced preaching 
Methodism. (Wesley's Works, Vol. 3, p. 74.) 

Whence, then, came class leaders and class 
meetings? You say this is an essential part of 
your system, and is peculiar to it ; and Mr. In- 
skip says that it is so important to the life of 
Methodism, that if it should by any means be 
laid aside, your " decline and fall would cer- 
tainly and rapidly follow." Yet we have seen, 
from the history of Methodism, that nothing of 



BISHOP MORRIS. 101 

the kind existed for some ten years after the 
first rise of Methodism in Oxford. But we are 
not left in the dark upon this subject. One of 
your leading writers, while giving the history 
of Methodism, says upon tins point : 

44 In the month of February,, in the year 1742, 
several ' earnest and sensible ' men, as Mr. Wes- 
ley calls them, connected with the Society under 
his care at Bristol, were together consulting as \o 
the best method to be adopted to secure the pay- 
ment of a debt incurred in building a ' preaching 
place.' It was agreed that the Society be divided 
into classes of twelve, and that one of them 
should be appointed to collect of each of these 
what they might be willing to give. The same 
arrangement was made in London, about a 
month after." — In skip, p. 192. 

But Mr. Wesley himself is a little more defi- 
nite in his history of this matter. Speaking of 
this Bristol conference of " earnest and sensible 
men," he says : 

" I asked how shall we pay the debt upon 
the preaching house ? Captain Foy stood up 
and said, l Let every one give a penny a week, 
and it will be easily done/ ' But many of them,' 
said one, ' have not a penny to give.' l True/ 
said the Captain, l then put teu or twelve of 
them to me. Let each of them give what they 
can weekly, and I will supply what is wanting/ 
Many others made the same offer." So Mr. 



102 LETTERS TO 

Wesley divided the Society among them, assign- 
ing a class of about twelve persons to each of 
these, who were termed " leaders." (Wesley's 
Works, Vol. 7, p. 316.) 

Here, then, we have found the origin of class 
meetings and class leaders, in the goodly town of 
Bristol, in " merry old England," in the year of 
grace, 1742, just thirteen years after the " first 
rise of Methodism." This institution originated 
in the prolific brain of Captain Foy, who seems 
to have been a good financier, and as a stroke of 
financial policy he certainly made a "capital hit." 

But let it be observed, that the design of the 
institution at first was not to place " class lead- 
ers" over the members to perform pastoral du- 
ties, between the pastor and his flock, which you 
inform us is the position now occupied by such 
functionaries in your church ; but it was simply 
an arrangement suggested and set on foot by the 
good Captain Foy, for the purpose of raising the 
money necessary to pay the debt on the meeting 
house, and of course temporary in its character 
and design. 

Such, my dear Doctor, is a brief, but true 
history of the rise of class meetings and class 
leaders, by which you and all our readers will 
see that it is not from heaven, but of men. 
Class leaders are an order of officials wholly un- 
known in the primitive church, and of course 
entirely unnecessary to the growth and prosper- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 103 

ity of the Christian church, and to the salvation 
of man. Bat Mr. Inskip says of this peculia 
institution: 

4i Class meetings are peculiar to Methodism. 
Other churches have occasional inquiry, confer- 
ence, or experience meetings ; but the class 
meetings are an essential part of the system. 
All persons uniting with us, are required to at- 
tend class, unless prevented by sickness or other 
circumstances not under their control. It is not 
claimed that this institution is of divine origin. 
Like many other peculiarities of our system, it 
is a prudential regulation." ....... 

u And so soon as we become willing to dispense 
with this feature of our system, our decline and 
downfall will certainly and rapidly follow." — In- 
skip s Methpdism, pp. 192-3. 

Now, my dear Bishop, what respect can we 
entertain for a religious system which depends 
for its very existence upon a mere humanism — 
" a prudential regulation," for which no ik divine 
authority " is claimed, even by its most ardent 
advocates and supporters? Can such a system 
be of God? You need not attempt to answer 
this question, if you think it too hard for you, 
and your silence will be understood by all. In- 
deed, I do not expect you to answer it. 

But let no one misunderstand me, while I 
thus speak of the "peculiarities of Methodism." 
It is the system, and not those who honestly 



104 LETTERS TO 

embrace it, that I am opposing. I know that 
the system is wrong, and therefore I oppose it 
with earnestness, and use great plainness of 
speech ; though I have great respect for you, 
Doctor, and all other good Methodists. I have 
no doubt that many Methodists are sincere and 
pious; and it is because I love you and them, 
that I speak thus plainly of your system. And 
may I not hope that you will not consider me 
u your enemy because I tell you the truth?" 

As to your other two agents, "exhorters and 
local preachers," so far as they are peculiar to 
Methodism, and come between the pastor and 
his flock, and are above the members, the same 
remarks and objections that we have already 
made concerning class meetings and class lead- 
ers will apply in all their force. 

It is true there were exhorters in the primitive 
church, but they were not an " order of men," 
above the church. Every member was author- 
ized to exhort his brethren. "Exhorting one 
another, and so much the more as you see the 
day approaching." But they were not officers, 
licensed by the preacher in charge, or the quar- 
terly conference ; nor were they placed above 
their brethren, "between the members and the 
pastor." 

The early Christians appear to have been 
nearly all preachers, not local, but itinerant 
preachers. We are told, Acts viii. 1-4, that 



BISHOP MORRIS. 105 

when Stephen was put to death, u there was a 
great persecution against the church which was 
at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad 
throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, 
except the Apostles." .... " Therefore 
they who were scattered abroad, went every 
where preaching the word." 

Thus we see that they were all scattered abroad ; 
and that all who were thus dispersed, " went 
every where preaching the word." The Apos- 
tles remained in Jerusalem, and were, at least 
for the time being, the only " local preachers" 
among them. And their commission was to 
"every creature." Every one was required to 
do all he could for the advancement of the cause 
of Christ. Jesus says, "Occupy till I come." 
Whether the Christian bad one, two, or five 
talents, he was required to improve them accord- 
ing to his ability. But such an order of men as 
" local preacbers," being placed above their 
brethren and between the members and their 
pastors, was never thought of among the primi- 
tive disciples. 

PRESIDING ELDERS. 

On page 5th you say of the office of " presid- 
ing elder: " 

"The office first appears on the minutes of 
1785, where an elder's name stands at the head 
of each district, but without the prefix ' presid- 
ing' till 17S9, just seventy years ago, since which 



106 LETTERS TO 

period the minutes in this respect have been 
uniform. A usage of seventy-four years' stand- 
ing is entitled to respectful consideration. It 
has, however, higher claims than age confers, on 
the score of utility. The experiment has proved 
itself successful." 

Well, Bishop, that will do. The office of pre- 
siding elder, according to your own showing, is 
an experiment of only seventy-four years' stand- 
ing. Such an officer was not only unknown in 
the Methodist Church during the first half cen- 
tury of its existence, but had no existence in the 
Christian church for seventeen centuries, and is 
never referred to in the New Testament ! Some 
seventy-five years ago your fathers " felt the 
need " of something to come in between itiner- 
ancy and the bishops, for the purpose of forming 
the "Bishop's cabinet." And not knowing 
exactly what they did want, they created the 
office of " Elder" to stand at the head of each 
district, but finding by experiment that this was 
not exactly what they needed, they placed the 
prefix " presiding" to the " elder," four years 
afterwards, and the experiment then worked 
well, and it has been retained as part of the sys- 
tem. 

But you say you have better evidence in its 
favor than age (seventy- four years). Well, 
Doctor, let us have it ; we want something bet- 
ter than that before we are prepared to admit its 



BISHOP MORRIS. 107 

divine authority. Christianity is more than 
eighteen hundred years old, and this part of your 
peculiar system can only be traced back some 
seventy five years, and can consequently claim 
nothing on the score of antiquity. But let us 
have your best and strongest proof. 

You say, " The experiment has proved itself 
successful." And is this the best you can do, 
Doctor, for your u presiding elder?" I suppose 
it is, and will therefore examine it for a moment. 
Did it ever occur to you, my dear Bishop, that 
this argument would prove too much for your 
purpose? Has not the Romish Church been 
very successful in the use of the mass, the con- 
fessional, penance, and purgatory? You know 
that she has been very successful in the use of 
these unscriptural and miserable dogmas. 
Abolish any or all of these, and her " decline 
and downfall would certainly and rapidly follow. ' ' 
But does the argument of success prove Roman- 
ism to be from God? Certainly not. 

Mohammed was very successful in promulgat- 
ing the Koran. But did his success prove his 
system right, and his religion acceptable to God? 
What say you ? 

Joe Smith, the modern pretender, was very 
successful in the promulgation of the "Book of 
Mormon." You know that unprecedented suc- 
cess attended the efforts of Smith and his delu- 
ded followers in establishing their miserable de" 



108 LETTERS TO 

lusion; but so far from receiving this success 
as evidence of the divinity of Mormonism, you 
and I regard -the system and the practice under 
it as an abomination in the sight of God, and 
that their success only proves the gullibility of 
the people. Is this not so, Doctor ? 

No indeed — we Protestants want better evi- 
dence for any doctrine, practice, or office in the 
church, than mere success, or utility. We must 
have a " thus saith the Lord." And therefore 
any office, doctrine, or practice, that does not 
date back more than seventy-five years we reject 
as having no authority that we are bound to re- 
spect; and wanting in all the essential elements 
of a Christian institution. 

You remember that God said to Moses, when 
he was about to make the tabernacle, "See that 
thou make all things according to the pattern 
shown thee in the mount." This tabernacle 
was a type of the Christian temple, or church of 
Christ. God has shown us the pattern of the 
"church of the living God." This divine pat- 
tern was the church constituted at Jerusalem, 
on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit 
came down, according to the promise of Jesus, 
and "guided them into all truth." 

To this model we must always refer ; and if 
we should find that in our honest efforts to build 
up the church of Christ, and " spread scriptural 
holiness over these lands," we have made a mis- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 109 

take, and have entirely failed to " make all things 
according to the divine model or pattern" shown 
us at Jerusalem, and that instead of " spreading 
scriptural holiness over these lands," we have 
been building up a sect of very recent date, and 
spreading Methodism, Presbyterianism, or Camp- 
bellism u over these lands;" I say, if we find 
that we have been thus engaged, no matter how 
honestly, we ought at once to acknowledge our 
errors, reform and set ourselves right. 

For example, if we should find from an exam- 
ination of the u divine pattern," as given to us in 
the New Testament, that in the Jerusalem church, 
and those organized under the eye of the Apos- 
tles, there were no " class meetings," " class 
leaders," " local preachers and exhorters," such 
as we find in the M. E. Church, placed over the 
congregation and between the members and the 
pastor, no "presiding elders" over the traveling 
preachers and between them and the bishops, to 
form the "Bishop's cabinet," we should then be 
satisfied at once that we have not "made all 
things" according to the " pattern shown us " in 
the mount of God; and we should at once give 
these things all up, and abandon them as an ex- 
crescence upon the tree of life. 

Or if we should find in our examination of the 
"pattern," that none were received into the 
primitive church without faith in Christ, as the 
Son of God, repentance, confession of Jesus 



110 LETTERS TO 

Christ, before men, as the Savior of sinners, and 
immersion in the name of Jesus Christ, into the 
name of the Father, and of the Son and of the 
Holy Spirit; and that this immersion was for, 
or in order to, or into the " remission of sins," 
we could then apply the divine pattern to our 
work, and see whether we have been working 
according to it. 

And if we find that we have been working and 
" experimenting" upon rules and regulations of 
our own make, for a hundred years, under which 
we have taken into our church unconverted per- 
sons and infants without faith ; and that we have 
changed immersion into the unmeaning rite of 
sprinkling or pouring, then we may know with 
absolute certainty that we are wrong, however 
sincere we may have been in our efforts. 

And on the other hand, if in our examination 
of the divine pattern, we find that we have the 
same faith, the same divine regulations for re- 
ceiving members into the church, and of with- 
drawing fellowship from unruly members ; that 
we have the same immersion, and submit to it 
with the same design ; that we wear the same 
name, speak the same things, and mind the 
same things ; then we may know certainly that 
we are right, and can not be wrong. 



BISHOP MORRIS. Ill 



LETTER X. 

THE BISHOPS. 

New Testament bishops compared with Methodist 
bishops — Episkopoi means "overseers" — A plu- 
rality of overseers in every congregation — Metho- 
dist bishops have no local diocese — Primitive over- 
seers Or bishops exercised no episcopal functions 
out of the particular congregation in which they 
had their membership — Lord King on Primitive 
church, etc.— Methodist bishops claim and exercise 
authority never dreamed of in the primitive church. 
— Primitive bishops were commanded to "feed the 
nock" — Six bishops can not, if they would, feed the 
Methodist flock; it is too large — When did the 
primitive bishops hold a general conference to make 
prudential rules? — Methodist churches have no 
voice in choosing their pastors — There were no 
such bishops, as the six, in the early days of Meth- 
odism — John Wesley no bishop — Mr. Wesley's let- 
ter to Asbury. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D.: 

My Dear Sir — I now come to the Bishops of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. Speaking of 
your bishops as the ** appointing power," you 
say, on page 54th of your little book : 

u This pertains to the general superintendency. 
We have now six bishops, neither of which 
claims any local diocese. They are jointly re- 
sponsible for the oversight of the whole connec- 
tion ; they divide it into six part3, each taking 
his route for one year, and then changing, that 



112 LETTERS TO 

each in his turn presides in all the conferences. 
One of our official duties is to fix the appoint- 
ments of the preachers, under certain rules of 
limitation well understood among us. In our 
peculiar organization many individual rights are 
relinquished for the general good. Ministers re- 
linquish any real or supposed rights of prefer- 
ence for places, with the understanding that the 
members are not to choose their pastors, but to 
receive whomsoever are sent. This is as fair for 
one party as the other. Of course the execution 
of such a system requires the agency of a third 
party, the bishops." 

Well, Bishop, thou hast well said thai: the 
system of Methodism is peculiar; and though 
you do not claim divine authority for it, I am 
sure you will not complain if I compare Meth- 
odist bishops with the bishops or overseers of 
the primitive church. 

In the days of the Apostles there were cpis- 
Jcopoi ordained in every congregation, and King 
James' translators have given us in the common 
version " bishops,' ' whereas the Greek word epis- 
Jcopoi simply means "overseers," and should be 
so rendered, upon the authority of the learned 
world. But such a translation would spoil your 
peculiar system as regards the six bishops. 

Let us take the following example. Paul sent 
to Ephesus, from Miletus, and called the elders 
of the church (presbuterous) and delivered to 



BISHOP MORRIS. 113 

them his final charge, assuring them that they 
should see his face no more ; and he said to 
them, "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, 
and to all the flock over the which the Holy 
Ghost hath made you overseers (rpiskopous), to 
feed the church of God, which he hath pur- 
chased with his own blood." Acts xx. 23. 

Now, we are not informed how many over- 
seers there were in the church at Ephesus, but 
we are told in the 17th verse, that they were all 
"presbyters" (presbateroiis), and therefore the 
"flock of God" which they were charged to 
feed and oversee was simply the congregation 
located in the city of Ephesus. The Greek word 
which our translators have rendered "over- 
seers," in the above text, and very properly so, 
is episkopous, the same which they generally 
translate by the term "bishops." 

While, then, your bishops have no "local dio- 
cese," but have under their charge separately 
and jointly the thousands of your societies; the 
primitive overseers or bishops were local, and 
exercised their episcopal functions, if they had 
any, only in the individual congregations, of 
which they were members respectively, and to 
whom they were amenable for their conduct as 
Christian men. 

Take another example in proof of our posi- 
tion. " Paul and Timotheus, the servants of 
Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus 



114 LETTERS TO 

which are at Philippi, with the bishops and dea- 
cons;" Phil, i. 1. 

Now you know, Doctor, that the Greek word 
here rendered " bishops," is episkopoi, in the 
plural, and should be rendered, as in the other 
example, " Overseers." This proves that there 
were in the church at Philippi two or more over-/ 
seers, or bishops, and consequently- our position 
is correct. 

Lord King, in his book on the " primitive 
church," after attempting to prove by the early 
Christian fathers that there was but one bishop, 
ruling at the same time in each congregation, he 
proceeds in chapter second to prove that no 
bishop in the primitive church had more than 
one congregation under his oversight. He says : 

44 Having in the former chapter shown that 
there was but one bishop to a church, we shall 
in this, evidence that there was but one church 
to a bishop, which will appear from this single 
consideration, viz : "that the ancient dioceses are 
never said to contain churches, in the plural, but 
only a church, in the singular." 
"This was a common name whereby a bishop's 
care was denominated, the bishop himself being 
usually called the bishop of this, or that church, 
as Tertullian saith, that Pollycarp was ordained 
bishop of the church of Smyrna. As for the 
word "diocese" by which the bishop's flock is 
now usually expressed, 1 do not remember that 



BISHOP MORRIS. 115 

ever I found it so used in this sense by any of 
the ancients. 

His lordship next proceeds to give his reasons 
for preferring tho word parish to diocese, and 
says he finds it so used several hundred times 
in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History ; and he con- 
tinues : 

"It is usual there to read of the bishops of 
the parish of Alexandria, of the parish of Athens, 
of the parish of Carthage, and so of the bish- 
ops of the parishes of several other churches ; 
by the term denoting the very same that we 
now call a parish, viz. : a competent number of 
Christians dwelling near together, having one 
bishop, pastor or minister set over them, with 
whom they all met at one time to worship and 
serve God. * * So that a parish is 

the same as a particular church, or a single con- 
gregation." Page 31. 

Again, on page 33, his lordship says : " The 
bishop had but one altar or communion table in 
his whole diocese, at which his whole flock re- 
ceived the sacrament from him. At this altar 
the bishop administered the sacrament to his 
whole flock at one time. * * * And thus 
it was in Justin Martyr's days; the bishop's 
whole diocese met together on Sunday, when 
the bishop gave them the eucharist ; and if any 
were absent, he sent it to them by the deacons." 

Much more of the same kind of testimony 



116 LETTERS TO 

might be given from this learned author, who 
was a zealous Episcopalian, and of course can 
not be accused of any leaning to our view of the 
subject ; but we have quoted enough to show 
that Lord King and all the early fathers were 
opposed to Episcopacy, as developed in your 
peculiar system of Methodism. 

I will now pay my respects to the bishops of 
the M. E. Church, in all kindness and humility, 
and see how they will compare with the bishops 
or overseers of the primitive church. You tell 
us in your little book, as already quoted, that 
you u have now six bishops, neither of whom 
claims any local diocese. They are jointly re- 
sponsible for the oversight of the whole con- 
nection," etc. 

From this it is evident that you, Bishop Mor- 
ris, and your five Episcopal associates, claim and 
exercise authority and power never dreamed of 
by the bishops or overseers of the primitive 
church. They only exercised their office in a 
single congregation in which they respectively 
had their membership, while you exercise Epis- 
copal authority and power, from Maine to Texas, 
and from New York to the Pacific coast, every 
where where your peculiar societies exist! This 
arrangement gives nearly six States to the bish- 
op, with a good slice of territory. This puts it 
entirely out of your power to obey the com- 
mand of God to the primitive bishops, to "feed 



BISHOP MORRIS. * 117 

the flock of God." Your field is too large 
for such a work, even if you were disposed to 
do it. 

5. Bat if I understand you, my dear bishop, 
it is no part of your business to " feed the flock." 
Your time is all occupied with other matters, 
such as "presiding in all the Annual Confer- 
ences," "fixing the appointments of all the 
preachers," and "presiding in the General Con- 
ferences," where you make all your "prudential 
rules and regulations," modifying such as are 
found to need changing, and abolishing alto- 
gether such as are found by actual experiment 
not to "work well.'" In these General Confer- 
ences you have your Discipline to amend, by 
modifying some of its parts, leaving out a chap- 
ter, and inserting one in its place, where your 
experience, and observation may decide such 
change necessary. 

These duties are arduous, but it being a part 
of your peculiar system, you must devote your- 
selves to them. Indeed, according to your own 
showing, your peculiar system could not exist 
one hour without this element. And yet such 
matters constituted no part of the work of the 
New Testament bishops. Yv T here and when did 
bishop Paul, or bishop Peter, John or James 
preside in an annual conference? Or a General 
Conference, to make u prudential rules and 
regulations " for the church of Christ, or to 



118 LETTERS TO 

modify the law of the Lord, to strike out a chap- 
ter of the New Testament, and insert one in its 
place? When and where did any one of the 
bishops of the primitive church meet in an 
annual Conference " to fix the appointments of 
the preachers." You are compelled to answer, 
" Nowhere ! never ! " 

We are then forced to the conclusion that you 
are not such bishops as the Holy Spirit con- 
stituted u overseers" in the primitive church. 
But do you not, as bishops, in " fixing the ap- 
pointment of your preachers,' ' exercise a sort of 
lordship over them, that is wholly inconsistent 
with Christian liberty ? Your preachers have 
no voice in their appointments. To one, you 
say, " Go, and he goeth, to another, come, and 
he cometh," and to your servants, generally, 
" Do this thing, and they do it." 

In like manner the societies have no voice in 
this matter. You say to them, "Receive this 
preacher," and they are compelled to accept him 
as their pastor, no matter how much they may 
feel opposed to him. Thus all individual rights, 
both in preachers and people, are given up; and 
your Episcopal will becomes the absolute law in 
the case, to which all must bow with the most 
implicit obedience, " not answering again." 

But Mr. John Wesley, whom you all acknowl- 
edge as the tl father of Methodism," was not only 
not a bishop himself, but he was entirely opposed 



BISHOP MORRIS. 119 

to the whole thing, as his writings abundantly 
show. Mr. Inskip says : 

u In ordaining or appointing Dr. Coke and 
Mr. Asbury to be Superintendents to govern the 
societies in America, Mr. Wesley, justice com- 
pels us to say, had no sympathy with the high 
prerogatives sometimes claimed for the episco- 
pacy. He evidently understood the office to be 
one of supervision or oversight. In other words, 
the superintendency to which he promoted these 
men, was merely an office and not a ministerial 
order in the church. * * * He despised 
every thing like high sounding names and titles. 
Hence in the credentials which he furnished Dr. 
Coke, he and Mr. Asbury were proclaimed joint 
superintendents. He used the term "Superin- 
tendents," because it conveyed an idea of the 
office to which these men were elevated; and be- 
cause of his aversion to the title of bishop. 1 ' 
(Inskip, pp. 47, 48.) 

But to give the reader a clear conception of 
Mr. Wesley's views of the Episcopal dignity, we 
shall here insert an extract of Mr. Wesley's letter 
to Mr. Asbury upon the subject. From the date 
of this letter, we see that Methodism had been in 
existence more than half a century without a 
bishop, unless Dr. Coke and F. Asbury may be 
so considered. But here is the letter of Mr. Wes- 
ley. (See Wesley's Works, Vol. 7, p. 189.) 



120 LETTERS TO 

"London, September 20, 1788. 

" There is, indeed, a wide difference between 
the relations wherein you stand to the Americans, 
and the relation wherein I stand to all the Meth- 
odists. You are the elder brother of the Ameri- 
can Methodists. I am, under God, the father of 
the whole family. Therefore, I naturally care 
for you all in a manner no other person can do. 
Therefore I, in a measure, provide for you all; 
for the supplies whicli Dr. Coke provides for you, 
he could not provide were it not for me — were it 
not that I not only permit him to collect, but also 
support him in so doing. 

"But in one point, my dear brother, I am a 
little afraid the Doctor and you differ from me. 
I study to be little, you study to be' great ; I 
creepy you strut along. I found a school, you a 
college. Nay, and call it after your own names* 
O, beware! Do not seek to be something! Let 
me be nothing, and Christ all in all." 

" One instance* of this, your Greatness, has 
given me great concern. How can you, how 
dare you suffer yourself to be called a Bishop? 
I shudder, I start at the very thought. Men may 
call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, 
and I am content; but they shall never, by my 
consent, call me a Bishop! For my sake, for 
God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to 
this ! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, 
but let the Methodists know their calling better. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 121 

"Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all 
that is in my heart ; and let this, when I am no 
more seen, bear witness how sincerely I am your 
affectionate friend and brother, 

John Wesley." 

Thus we have the unequivocal testimony of 
Mr. Wesley against your Episcopacy! In read- 
ing over the strong language of Mr. Wesley, we 
might almost come to the conclusion that he was 
endowed with the spirit of prophecy. Looking 
down into the future, he saw the extravagant 
claims and pretentions of his two superintendents, 
Dr. Coke and F. Asbury, and their successors, in 
the bishop's office! When, instead of confining 
their official acts to a single congregation, as did 
the primitive overseers, they would usurp all au- 
thority in the organization, and claim authority 
to change times and laws ! And scorning the old 
fashioned idea of a parish or diocese composed 
of a single congregation, they would put forth 
claims more extravagant than the Bishops of 
the Church of England themselves. They are 
content with a local diocese, as London, Liver- 
pool, Manchester, Fork, Lancaster, Canterbury, 
Oxford, etc. But you have no " local diocese." 
The whole connection — the world is your diocese. 
He clearly saw the evil that would follow such 
usurpation, and hence his earnest protest, and 
solemn warning! 

Yet, despite the warning voice of Mr. Wesley, 



122 LETTERS TO 

and the clear testimony of Scripture against you, 
you have inaugurated this fearful element in 
your ecclesiastical system! What do you think, 
Doctor, the u father of the whole family, under 
God," would say to you, if he were now living? 
Would he not address you as he did Mr. Asbury — 
"I shudder, I start at the very thought? " 

I hope, Doctor, you will not become excited, 
and offended with me, for dealing thus plainly 
with you, and your ecclesiastical polity. Though 
I have just learned that one of your brethren, 
after reading some of these letters, as published 
in the Christian Record, became so much ex- 
cited, that in spite of the entreaties of friends, 
he threw the Record into the flames, and thus 
consumed one copy of an argument which he 
could not answer! 

May the Lord lay not this sin to his charge, 
but " grant him repentance to the acknowledg- 
ment of the truth; " that he may be saved in the 
day of the Lord Jesus. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 123 



LETTER XI. 

Paul's experience — Methodist bishops do not have 
Paul's experience — Paul had the signs of an Apos- 
tle — Methodist bishops have not — Can not speak 
with tongues — Paul's commission — He did not con- 
fer with flesh and blcod — Methodist bishops do — 
Paul did not "fix the appointments of the preach- 
ers" — Paul defended the gospel, and disputed with 
its enemies — Methodist bishops never debate — Meth- 
odist bishops control the spiritual and temporal in 
terests of the church — General Conference — Christ 
and his Apostles have made laws for his church — 
The two checks on the ministry. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D.: 

My Dear Sir — On the 63d page of your little 
book, I read the following very remarkable state- 
ment. You say: 

"A Methodic bishop has a little of Paul's ex* 
perience : ' Besides those things that are without, 
that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all 
the churches.' Oar relation is precisely the same 
to East Maine Conference and to Cincinnati Con- 
ference, to Minnesota Conference and to Balti- 
more Conference, and so of all the rest. It is our 
duty to care for the entire connection of preachers 
and members, and, as far as practicable, have 
them all provided for." 

I acknowledge, Doctor, that I am a little 
amused to hear a Methodist bishop claiming to 



124: LETTERS TO 

have the experience of an Apostle. This is 
equivalent to saying that Methodist bishops are 
Apostles ! — as no man can have the experience 
of an xlpostle who is not an xlpostle. A lawyer 
has a lawyer's experience, and no other man has 
such experience. A Christian has a Christian's 
experience, but a sinner has no such experience. 

But if you claim to be Apostles, you should 
be ready to demonstrate the claim by " divers 
miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit." Paul 
says, " The signs of an Apostle were with me." 
That is, mighty signs and wonders were done 
by him, wherever he went preaching the " un- 
searchable riches of Christ," Are the " signs 
of an Apostle" with you, Doctor, or any of your 
Episcopal associates? Can you speak with 
tongues that you have not learned ? Can you 
" handle serpents" with safety? Can you drink 
deadly poison without injury? Can you cast out 
demons? Can you heal the sick? Or can you 
raise the dead? If not — and I know you do not 
claim to do any of these things — ihen how dare 
you claim to have the experience of an Apostle ! 

But let us look for a moment at Paul's experi- 
ence. He was a chosen vessel to " bear the name 
of the Lord to the Gentiles, the kings of the 
earth, and the children of Israel." He was 
called and commissioned by the Lord himself. 
Can a Methodist bishop say as much ! Paul's 
religious experience commenced with his con- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 125 

version in the city of Damascus. He was a 
penitent believer, and the disciple Ananias came 
in unto him, and after restoring him to sight, he 
said to him, "And now why tarriest thou? 
Arise and be immersed (baptized), and wash 
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
And Luke says, " He arose forthwith and was 
baptized. " And straightway, without confer- 
ring with flesh and blood, he commenced preach- 
ing the gospel of Christ. 

Has any Methodist bishop had such an expe- 
rience as this? I presume not. In the first 
place, none of them, I suppose, were " baptized 
to wash away their sins ; " and especially they 
have not been "buried with him by baptism," 
as Paul assures us that he was, as well as the 
Roman brethren. (Rom. vi. 3-6.) And you 
did not go to the work without " conferring 
with flesh and blood," as he did. You first 
conferred with flesh and blood in the quarterly 
conference, and obtained license to preach ; and 
finally you had to confer with flesh and blood 
in the General Conference, and by the General 
Conference you were invested with the episcopal 
office. There is, therefore, no point of resem- 
blance between your conversion and call to the 
ministry and that of Paul. But Paul bore a 
divine commission. It runs thus : 

11 But arise, stand upon thy feet, for I have 
appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make 



126 LETTERS TO 

thee a minister and a witness, both of these 
things which thou hast seen and of those things 
in the which I will appear unto thee ; delivering 
thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto 
whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and 
to turn them from darkness to light and from 
the power of Satan unto God, that they may re- 
ceive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance 
among them who are sanctified by faith that is 
in me." (Acts xxvi. 16-18.) 

From the foregoing, we see that Paul bore a 
commission from God, such as no Methodist 
bishop ever received. And in carrying out the 
great work entrusted to him in his commission, 
he endured all sorts of hardships and persecu- 
tions from without, and besides all this, " the 
care of all the churches came upon him daily. " 
In what did this care consist? Was it in at- 
tending and presiding in all the " annual confer- 
ences?" No ; there were no such gatherings as 
" annual conferences " in Paul's day, and there- 
fore he never attended an annual conference, or 
presided in one, in his life. 

Did the "care of all the churches," which 
Paul says " came upon him daily," consist in 
the labor of " fixing the appointments of the 
preachers?" 

Nothing of the kind. He never performed 
any such work. The nearest approach to it was 
in his course with his boys, Timothy and Titus. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 127 

Through his preaching they had both been con- 
verted, and under his instruction they had com- 
menced preaching. He did not authoritatively 
" fix Timothy" at Ephesus, without consulting 
his will in the matter. On this point Paul says 
to Timothy, "As I besought thee to abide still 
at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia." He 
did not, therefore, " fix his appointment," as 
Methodist bishops do, but "besought him to 
abide there" for a time. (1 Tim. i. 3.) 

To Titus he says, "For this cause left I thee 
in Crete," etc. He did not fix him in the island 
of Crete against his will, but simply "left him " 
there, doubtless with his own consent. "To fix 
the appointments of the preachers" was, there- 
fore, no part of the "care of the churches that 
came on him daily." So far, then, as the fixing 
of the appointments of the preachers is con- 
cerned, your experience is very different from 
that of Paul. According to your own state- 
ment, the "care of all the Methodist churches" 
that comes daily upon you and your five episco- 
pal associates is simply " fixing the appointments 
of all the preachers," and in this way providing 
for the wants of all your societies — a sort of care 
that never came upon Paul, or any of the Apos- 
tles or primitive overseers. 

Paul was " set for the defense of the gospel." 
The church was every where assailed by her 
enemies, and all eyes were turned to the great 



128 LETTERS TO 

Apostle to the Gentiles to defend them. He did 
not decline the contest, but met the opposers of 
truth every where, whether they were infidels, 
Jews, Judaizing teachers of Christianity, dr Pa- 
gan philosophers. 

Instead of having any part of Paul's experi- 
ence in such matters, Methodist bishops never 
engage in controversy, so far as I am informed. 
They leave all the debating with those whom 
they regard as in error, to the "inferior clergy.'' 
So did not Paul. He " disputed two whole years 
in the school of one Tyrannus." That was a very 
long debate, but it was very profitable to the cause 
of Christ, as by that means all the people in a 
large district of country had the opportunity of 
hearing the gospel . Have you ever had any such 
experience as this, Doctor ? I presume you have 
not. 

I take the following item from your Discipline, 
chapter 4th, section 1st, " on the election and con- 
secration of bishops and their duties." In answer 
to the question, " What are the duties of a bish- 
op?" you answer, u To oversee the spiritual and 
temporal business of our church." 

From this statement it appears that you have 
the vast temporal and spiritual interests of your 
widespread connection entirely under your con- 
trol and supervision. You tell us that your 
church property is worth twenty millions of dol- 
lars. Then you and your five associates have the 



BISHOP MORRIS. 129 

management and control of this large property. 
In addition to this, you have to provide spiritual 
food for a million of Methodists, scattered over 
these lands. This you do by " fixing the appoint- 
ments of all your preachers," so that all your so- 
cieties, the poor and the rich, may enjoy the min- 
istrations of your preachers. 

These are cares to which the apostle Paul was 
a stranger. And pray, Doctor, what other inter- 
ests or business have your people? All their 
spiritual and temporal interests are entrusted to 
your hands. Then your people are relieved from 
all responsibility. The church, as such, has no 
spiritual or temporal interests or business to look 
after or oversee. You bishops have taken charge 
of all that matter for them. If your societies do 
not prosper both spiritually and temporally, you 
are to blame and must answer for the failure, and 
not your people. And pray, Doctor, what more 
does the Bishop of Rome claim than to control 
the temporal and spiritual interests and business 
of his church ? 

In view of these lofty pretensions of the bish- 
ops of your church, I do not wonder that a man 
of Mr. Wesley's modesty and Christian humility 
should shrink from such fearful responsibili- 
ties, and shudder at the mere thought of being 
a bishop. I must dismiss the bishops. 
5 



130 LETTERS TO 

GENERAL CONFERENCE. 

On the 64th page of your book you take up 
the "General Conference," and say: "Thus 
far we have discoursed chiefly on the executive 
affairs of our church, but now turn our atten- 
tion for a few minutes only to her rule -mak- 
ing department. The General Conference is 
composed of delegates from all the annual con- 
ferences, who collectively represent and act for 
the entire connection of ministers and mem- 
bers. " 

In this law-making department none but 
preachers are admitted. No layman, however 
intelligent and well qualified he may be to rep- 
resent his fellow members and legislate for them, 
is permitted to be a delegate to the General Con- 
ference. Is this consistent with Christian lib- 
erty ? But what are the duties of the General 
Conference? You say, on 65th page : 

" Besides revising the Discipline, they elect 
bishops, book agents, editors, corresponding sec- 
retaries for the missionary Sabbath school, and 
tract societies, and regulate the publishing inter- 
ests of the whole church." 

I wish only to notice two points in the above, 
that is, the revision of the Discipline and the 
regulating of the publishing interests of the 
whole church. In reference to the first, Mr. 
Inskip says, on page 65th: " At. various peri- 
ods as it was found expedient or necessary, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 131 

these rules and regulations were abolished, 
changed, or improved ; until at length the form 
now in use was completed." Again, on page 
66th, Mr. Inskip says : _" The General Confer- 
ence, for many years past, at each session have 
appointed a committee known as the committee 
on revisal. It is the business of this committee 
to consider such modifications or improvements 
of our economy as may be desired by the people, 
or are deemed just and prudent. In this manner, 
it will be seen our system of government has 
gradually assumed its present form," etc. And 
again he says : u To this constant and well di- 
rected course of innovation and improvement we 
are indebted for the adaptation or suitableness 
of our system," etc. I read the following on the 
69th page of your little book. You say : 

u The leading men of the church understand 
her constitution, and will not override it ; they 
know her true interests, and will endeavor to 
promote them by revision of rules and other- 
wise. The Discipline is, upon the whole, much, 
improved recently, and may be in some few par- 
ticulars made still better." 

Do you ask me what these quotations prove ? 
I answer, they prove to a demonstration that the 
economy of Methodism is not of divine author- 
ity, but a mere human contrivance, that may be 
changed, modified, or abolished altogether, by the 
law-making department of your church. The 



132 LETTERS TO 

economy of Methodism is not now what it has 
been, and it is not now what it may be a quarter 
of a century from the present time. No Meth- 
odist has a guaranty that the bishops and clergy 
in some future General Conference will not abol- 
ish the whole system, and substitute something 
else in its place. Indeed, the work has already 
commenced ; as in the last General Conference 
one entire chapter was stricken out of the Dis- 
cipline, and a new one written and substituted 
in its place. 

In the church of God, the rule or law-making 
department is the Lord Jesus Christ and his in- 
spired Apostles. And as they have furnished 
the church with a perfect code of laws and reg- 
ulations — " every thing that pertains to life and 
godliness' ' — ' 'a perfect law of liberty, "no change, 
modification, or improvement is admissible. That 
which is perfect can not be improved. Human 
rules are imperfect, and may be improved, but 
the divine, being perfect, never can. 

The second item, is the regulation of the "pub- 
lishing interests of the whole church.' - On this 
item, I wish only to say a few words. How does 
the General Conference " regulate the publishing 
business of the whole church?" In the sixth 
chapter of your Discipline, we have the explana- 
tion. The General Conference elect a " book 
committee," who are the censors of your de- 
nominational press. These censors of the press, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 133 

have power to suspend any editor or agent, in the 
interval of Conference ! Any editor or agent, 
who may have independence enough to think 
and act for himself, is liable to suspension, by 
this censorship, any day. This book committee 
at New York, if I understand the system, have 
to pass upon all books and publications, before 
they can be issued by the book concern. Thus 
centralizing all the powers of the denominational 
press, and effectually discouraging all individual 
enterprise ! 

On page 70th you commenced answering ob- 
jections to your system. But allow me to say, 
that I think you have raised some objections, 
that you have failed to answer, or remove. For 
example: Your first objection is, u The minis- 
ters have every thing their own way, and the 
members have no check upon them." This ob- 
jection you attempt to answer by naming two 
checks which the membership have upon the 
preachers. 

First, they have to furnish the material of 
which you make preachers. You say, " Our de- 
pendence is on them (the members) for men to 
keep up the ministerial force to carry on the 
work." What a check this is, upon the min- 
istry ! If the members furnish no more men, 
no more preachers can be made for the want of 
men ! ! 

It is like this : A government is accused of 



134 LETTERS TO 

tyranny, and usurpation, and the people have no 
check upon the rulers, and therefore have to 
submit. But the king or governor answers this 
objection by saying, kt There need be no trouble 
at all about this matter ; as you have an effectual 
check upon us, in your own hands. You have us 
in your power. If you do not like our adminis- 
tration of the government, or the laws we make, 
all you have to do is just to furnish no more men, 
of which to make governors, legislators, officers, 
etc., and you will dry us up, as all the powers of 
the government could not make a governor or leg- 
islator, without a man to make him of ! " 

Very true, but would such an answer be satis- 
factory to a down-trodden people ! Such a check 
would be no remedy for existing evils, and there- 
fore would amount to no check at all ! And the 
withholding of the young men of your church 
from your ministerial ranks, if such a thing were 
practicable, would be no check upon the present 
ministry ! Indeed, if you were not a very candid 
man, I should think you were jesting in this part 
of your answer. But let us have your second 
check. You say: 

u The second check which the members hold 
over their ministers is in the form of material 
aid. We are as dependent on them for the 
means, as we are for the men to carry on the 
work. * * * Now therefore, if you are tired 
of our ministry, just pull the purse strings a lit- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 135 

tie tighter, and hold on with a miserly grasp, and 
you have us in your power." 

The thousands of your members who have 
been under the impression that the bishops and 
preachers made the rules and administered the 
government of the church, and had things gen- 
erally their own way, will surely be satisfied 
when they learn from Bishop Morris, that all 
they have to do, to check the power and usur- 
pation of the ministry, is simply to starve them 
to death. Hunger is a powerful check. But in 
order to feel satisfied with such a check, your 
members would have to forget that according to 
your peculiar system the bishops have control 
of both the spiritual and temporal business and 
interests of the whole church, and therefore 
would not be likely to starve very soon ! 



136 LETTERS TO 



PART II.— LETTER XII. 

EIGHT REASONS FOR NOT BEING A METHODIST. 

1. Because I could not find the name "Methodist 
Episcopal Church " in the Bible. 

2. Because I could find no divine authority for your 
peculiar system of church polity. 

3. Because the M. E. Church, as an organism, is 
not old enough to be the church of God. 

4. Because the ninth article in her religious Creed 
contradicts the Bible. 

5. Because she practices "infant sprinkling," as a 
church ordinance, without a particle of Scripture au- 
thority to sustain it. 

6. Because she receives into her communion and 
fellowship unconverted persons, contrary to the teach- 
ing and example of Christ and his Apostles. 

7. Because she has setup a mere human invention, 
" the anxious seat," which is not only without any au- 
thority in the New Testament, but contrary to the gos- 
pel of Christ. 

8. Because we believe that Methodist Episcopacy, is 
not only un scriptural, but a fraud upon the M. E. 
Church. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. X).: 

My Dear Sir — In the eleven Letters, consti- 
tuting the first part of this little book, I have 
said all that I design to say at present, by way 
of reviewing your book, on the "Polity of the 
M. E.' Church ; " and I now propose to write a 
few letters, before closing the series, giving you 
some of my reasons for not being a Methodist. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 137 

I shall assume that you are anxious to know my 
reasons, though you have not publicly asked for 
them, and perhaps my reasons are not necessary 
for your own edification and comfort : yet I have 
no doubt they will be read with interest by thou- 
sands, in and out of the M. E. Church, and I 
am not without hope that I can make the subject 
interesting even to Bishop Morris. I beseech 
you, therefore, to hear me patiently. 

1. My first reason is, "Because 1 could not find 
the name ' Methodist Episcopal Church,' in the 
Bible." But before I examine this reason, I 
wish to say, I am not unfriendly to the M. E. 
Church, nor do I consider it destitute of piety 
and moral worth. On the contrary, I have no 
doubt you have a great many good and pious 
men and women among your membership. You 
have also numbers, wealth, talents and learning 
in your organism. And in your communion I 
number many personal and dear friends, and 
some relatives. What I shall say in these letters 
must not, therefore, be regarded as personal; 
but all must be understood as applying to the 
system, and not to those who profess it ; and I 
assure you, my dear Doctor, that if I could have 
been satisfied that the M. E. Church was the 
church of God, I should have gone into her 
communion with much pleasure. But I will not 
detain you longer from my reasons. 

I know that it is sometimes said, "there is 



138 LETTERS TO 

nothing in a name." And if you take that view 
of the subject, I presume you will think my first 
reason wholly insufficient. But viewing the mat- 
ter from my stand-point, it is a good and valid 
reason. 

The world is governed by names. Was there 
nothing in the names "Whig" and "Tory," in 
the days of the American Revolution ? Is there 
no importance in the names " Democrat," ''Re- 
publican " and " Abolitionist," as used by poli- 
ticians North and South in the present day? 
You will admit that these names mean a great 
deal. Is there nothing in the names u Arian," 
"Socinian," "Pelagian," " Calvinist " and "Ar- 
minian?" Some of these names had an awful 
significance in the days of Constantine. 

And is there nothing in the modern names, 
"Methodist," "Baptist," "Presbyterian," "Qua- 
ker," "Universalist" and "Oampbellite ? " This 
last name has been given to a large and influen- 
tial body of Christians by their enemies in deri- 
sion. And I assure you it has an awful meaning 
attached to it. The church does not acknowl- 
edge it, nor answer to it ; and yet when a preacher 
of the self-styled orthodox sects wishes to render 
a man odious in some communities, it answers 
the purpose just to call him a " Oampbellite." 
At the mention of this terrible name, all the 
old stories which have been circulated concern- 
ing the church of Christ at once start into view, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 139 

and the man is looked upon as a monster ! a sort 
of Ishmaelite, whose hand is against every man, 
and every man's hand should be against him. 

Yes, Doctor, there is much in a name, as you 
will admit, and as I shall more fully demonstrate 
before I am through. Take an example or two. 
The name "Bishop" indicates your authority 
in the M. E. Church. Stripped of this name, 
you would in a moment lose all your episcopal 
authority, and become weak like other men; and 
your word would have no more authority than 
the word of one of your inferior clergy. 

I recollect an anecdote of Bishop Roberts, who 
was a very plain and sensible man, which will 
illustrate the power of a name. On his way to 
conference, he stopped for the night where he 
was a stranger. The family were Methodists, 
and were expecting the Bishop that very even- 
ing, but had no idea that the plain old man who 
had arrived was the veritable Bishop. A young 
circuit preacher on his way to conference had 
also called to stay all night, expecting to meet 
the Bishop there, and intending to accompany 
him on to conference. The young preacher was 
a fair specimen of Young America, rather a 
dandy. 

When Bishop Roberts arrived, he soon saw 
the position of affairs, and concluded to remain 
incog. And no one suspected him of being the 
distinguished public functionary they were ex- 



140 LETTERS TO 

pecting. Being weary, the Bishop retired early 
and supperless to bed, and was informed by the 
host that, as they were expecting the distin- 
guished Bishop Roberts there that night, they 
were keeping a bed for him when he eame, and 
that he must therefore share the bed with a 
young circuit preacher, who would come in to 
bed after a while. 

The young man sat up till a late hour, having 
a good time with the young people, and then 
coming into the room, he found the plain old 
man duly inaugurated in his bed. So he crowded 
the old man back to the wall, occupying nearly 
the whole bed himself. The old man then com- 
menced a conversation with the young preacher, 
which led him to remark that they had been 
expecting Bishop Roberts along that evening on 
his way to conference, but had been disappointed, 
as he had not arrived. The old man remarked 
that he was a member of that respectable de- 
nomination, and was slightly acquainted with 
the Bishop. At this announcement the young 
preacher moved over a little, thus allowing the 
old gentleman a better margin. 

A little further conversation revealed the fact 
that the plain, old fogy gentleman was a Meth- 
odist preacher. At this, the young man moved 
still further over, dividing the bed with the old 
man, and began to apologize for his vain conduct 
during the evening, of which the old man had 



BISHOP MORRIS. 141 

been a silent witness, and for having crowded 
him so nearly out of the bed. A little further 
conversation brought out the startling fact that 
the plain old man in bed with him was the veri- 
table Bishop Roberts himself ! Upon learning 
this fact, the young man sprang out of the bed, 
and falling upon his knees, begged the Bishop's 
pardon for having treated him so rudely ; and 
remembering that they had suffered the old gen- 
tleman to retire supperless to bed, he begged 
him to permit him to have supper ordered for 
him even then. This, however, the Bishop re- 
fused to do, and gave his young brother a very 
severe lecture, which he received with great 
humility. 

Now, what was it that wrought this wonder- 
ful change in the feelings and conduct of the 
young preacher? It was nothing that he saw in 
the old man, It was simply the awe inspired 
in his mind by the power of the name ll Bishop." 
He could treat the old man with contempt; but 
the announcement that he was a Bishop brought 
the young man to his knees with an apology. 

Do you say that it does not matter what name 
a person wears, so he is a true disciple of Christ? 
I admit that this is plausible, but is it true? 
What would you think of a lady who had a good 
and kind husband, who, notwithstanding, would 
persist in calling herself by the name of some 
other man ? Would it imply no impropriety, or 



142 LETTERS TO 

want of love and respect for her lawful husband? 
Would it satisfy him or her to say, in justification 
of her course, "All is right, my dear husband ; 
I acknowledge you as my lawful husband, and I 
assure you that I am your true and devoted 
wife ; and it does not matter whose name I 
wear — the name is nothing; I certainly intend 
no disrespect to you?" 

Such reasoning, so far from satisfying him, 
would only be adding insult to injury. Well, 
the church of God is called "the bride, the 
Lamb's wife." Again, she is represented as a 
u bride adorned for her husband." Therefore 
right reason says, that as a dutiful wife she 
should wear the name of her husband and Lord, 
" who gave himself for her, that he might sanc- 
tify and cleanse her, by the washing of water by 
the word." And for her to choose another 
name by which to be known, is to treat him 
with contempt, and show a want of love and re- 
spect for the heavenly husband, who is Christ. 

I became religious when I was quite young. 
And before uniting with any church, I exam- 
ined the doctrines and discipline of the M. E. 
Church, and I also made diligent search of the 
holy Scriptures, to the best of my ability, and 
the creeds of all parties, to ascertain, if I could, 
who of all the sects were right, or nearest right. 
I was willing to be a Methodist, or any thing 
else, provided I could be satisfied that such an 



BISHOP MORRIS. 143 

organism was scriptural and divine. And I 
knew that if I could find the name, doctrines 
and government of the M. E. Church in the 
New Testament, it would be right to unite 
with it. 

Bat I need hardly say to a man of your expe- 
rience and research, that I searched in vain. I 
failed to find the Methodist Chxrch, as such, 
once named or even alluded to in the Bible. It 
is true that I found where Agrippa said to Paul, 
"Almost thou persuadest me to be a Chris- 
tian," not a Methodist." I also found where 
Peter said to the disciples of his time, " If any 
man suffer as a Christian, let him not be 
ashamed." But I could not find where he ever 
told any one to "suffer as a Methodist, a Bap- 
tist, a Presbyterian, or a Campbellite ! " From 
this I concluded that if any man should suffer 
on account of any of these sectarian names, he 
would have great reason to be ashamed ; that is, 
if he were to wear any of these party names of 
choice. 

But I admit that I found the name " Method- 
ist," but not in the Bible. I found it in a little 
book called the u Doctrines and Discipline of 
the Methodist Episcopl Church." And I learn 
from the history of the rise and progress of your 
societies in England, that the name " Method- 
ist" was first given to your people in derision 
by their enemies. But, strange to say, they 



144 LETTERS TO 

afterwards adopted it as a badge of distinction ! 
The name is only about a hundred years old, 
and is therefore too recent to be found in the 
Bible, by about seventeen centuries ! 

Therefore the name '•Methodist" is not from 
heaven, but of men, and wicked men at that I 
Finding this to be so, I could not adopt it, or 
consent to wear it, in view of my responsibility 
to God. But in searching the Scriptures for the 
"good and the right way," I also found the 
following Scripture, " And the disciples were 
called Christians first at Antioch," Acts xi. 26. 
They were not called " Methodists," " Bap- 
tists," " Presbyterians," or "Campbellites," but 
simply " Christians." 

Do you say that this name also was given in 
derision by the enemies of the disciples ? If so, 
please look into your Greek Testament, and you 
will see your mistake. The Greek word in the 
text which our translators have rendered, in the 
common version, "called," is hreematinai, from 
hreematizo. This word occurs nine times in the 
Greek New Testament, as follows : 

Acts ii. 12, and is translated, "warned of 
God." 

Acts ii. 22, also translated, " warned of God.' * 

Luke ii. 26, translated, "revealed unto him 
by the Spirit." 

Acts x. 22, translated, "warned of God." 

Acts xi. 26, translated, • * called Christians." 



BISHOP MORRIS. 145 

Roru. vii. 2, translated, " shall be called." 
Heb. viii. 5, translated, " was admonished of 
God." 
Heb. xi. 7, translated, " warned of God." 
Heb. xii. 25, translated, " who spake." 
This word, kreematizo, is defined in our lexi- 
cons thus: In New Testament, "to impart a 
divine warning, or admonition, give instruction 
or directions under the guidance of inspiration; 
and pass ; to receive a divine admonition, be 
warned of God, be divinely instructed ; in tears; 
to be called, to be named, be known by a par- 
ticular appellation." etc. 

Therefore, in strict accordance with the mean- 
ing of this word, as given above, and which you 
know is correct, the passage under consideration 
(Acts xi. 26) might be rendered thus : "And the 
disciples were called, or named of God, Chris- 
tians first at Antioch." Now, Doctor, if you will 
take the trouble to examine all the above exam- 
ples, where the word occurs in the Greek Testa- 
ment, you will find that I am correct, and that 
it is never used in the New Testament in any 
other sense than that of a divine warning, or 
divine direction. 

It follows, then, with the clearness of demon- 
stration, that the name "Christian," and not 
"Methodist," is the divinely authorized name, 
and was given to the disciples of Christ, by God 
himself, at the great city of Antioch, after the 



146 LETTERS TO 

multitude of the disciples, both Jew and Gen- 
tile, had become very great in that city. This 
divine name, as you know, was received and 
worn by all the disciples from that time onward, 
till the grand apostasy. Properly speaking, 
there were but two parties — the church of God, 
who were called Christians by divine authority, 
and the world. 

The followers of Christ were persecuted under 
this divine name, and they were not ashamed to 
"suffer as Christians." They knew that there 
was no other name given on earth and among 
men, for salvation, but the name of Christ, and 
they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to 
suffer for his name. James says to his brethren, 
" Do they not blaspheme that worthy name by 
the which ye are called?" (James ii. 7.) What 
''worthy name," Doctor, do you think it was 
by which the disciples "were called ?" Was it 
" Methodist?" No ; nobody was called by that 
name in that age of the world, and for seventeen 
hundred years afterwards ! It was the name 
" Christian." It was the "worthy name," as it 
was bestowed upon them by God himself. 
Again, Paul says, "For this cause I bow my 
knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
of whom the whole family in heaven and earth 
is named;" Eph. iii. 14, 15. 

What name think you, Doctor, did the heav- 
enly Father give to his great family? Was it 



BISHOP MORRIS. 147 

the name Methodist? You do not claim this, I 
know. Was it the name Christian f This was 
certainly the " new name," which the Lord 
named. He called them Christians at Antioch. 
Christian is the family name. Christ, the Head 
of the family, and Christian, the family, so called 
or named from him. Christ means the Anointed, 
and as all his disciples receive the Holy Spirit, 
which is the unction or anointing, it is proper 
that they wear the name Christian, which the 
mouth of the Lord has named. I am sure that 
you can not object to this. 

Sectarianism, which is only another name for 
heresy, sprang up out of the apostasy, and the 
parties named themselves according to their own 
fancy. They were not satisfied with the divinely 
given name of the family of God — " Christian." 
This was not sufficiently explit for them. As 
each new party differed in some things from all 
older parties, it must needs have a new name to 
distinguish it from all the rest. And after the 
great reformation of the sixteenth century was 
fully inaugurated and had proved a success, one 
party of Protestants called themselves Lutherans, 
because Luther was their principal teacher and 
leader; and afterwards the Calvinists, at Geneva, 
were called Presbyterians, from the form of church 
government which they adopted. And as new 
parties broke off from these, they assumed new 
names, to indicate the differences. 



148 LETTERS TO 

In this way, the followers of Mr. Wesley were 
called Methodists, not by divine authority, nor 
by themselves, but by sinners. This occurred 
while they were ail members of the Church of 
England. But when they separated from that 
church, they adopted it as their denominational 
cognomen. 

Thus, after examining the whole subject as 
fully as I was capable, and finding no mention 
of the "Methodist" name in the oracles of God, 
I could not consent to wear it. I saw that it 
was a mere humanism, of no authority whatever, 
and only calculated to keep Christians divided, 
and prevent the union for which Jesus prayed. 
(John xvii. 21.) 

But I did find in the oracles of God the good 
old family name 4 ' Christian," given by divine 
authority, first at Antioch, and which was worn 
and honored by Paul and all the Apostles and 
primitive Christians, and all that mighty host of 
confessors of the divine Savior who suffered mar- 
tyrdom during the first three hundred years of 
the Christian era. Under this worthy name, 
they suffered, and would not deny it. And find- 
ing a religious organism answering precisely to 
the description of the church of God found in 
the New Testament, holding fast the " form of 
sound words " and u contending earnestly for the 
faith once delivered to the saints," and wearing 
the same good old family name Christian, I 



BISHOP MORRIS. 149 

was satisfied that I had found " the church of 
God," and accordingly I united myself with her, 
to keep the ordinances as delivered to her by the 
Apostles. Was I not right, Doctor? 

A.nd permit me to assure you that I have never 
had any doubts of the correctness of my action 
in this matter. Indeed, I am sure that we are 
right, and can not be wrong, in our attempt to 
return to the " old paths," and to build upon the 
"foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus 
Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." 
If any thing is right and safe under these broad 
heavens, it is the ground we occupy. It is sim- 
ply to take God at his word, believe what he has 
said, and do what he has commanded, and in the 
way he has commanded it, and expect the fulfill- 
ment of all his promises. The Lord leads us into 
all truth. 



150 LETTERS TO 



LETTER XIII. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — My second reason for not being 
a Methodist is, " Because I could find no author- 
ity in the Bible for the pectdiar polity of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church" 

You will not be surprised at my failure to find 
tbis authority in the holy oracles, as you have 
not been able to find it there yourself. Indeed, 
you do not claim divine authority for it, but 
very distinctly admit, as quoted in a former let- 
ter, that your polity is human. Let me refresh 
your mind with that admission. You say on page 
15th : 

" The government of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church is peculiar. *.- * * It is eminently 
practical ; was not formed by theorizing, but is 
the result of experience. As Methodism arose 
and progressed, where the want of a rule was 
felt to aid the work, it was adopted. If its prac- 
tical working was found to be good it was retained, 
but if not good, it was modified or abolished. " 

To the same effect, I quote also from the ad- 
dress in your Discipline, as follows:- " We es- 
teem it our duty and privilege most earnestly to 
recommend to you, as members of our church, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 151 

our form of Discipline, which has been founded 
on the experience of a long series of years ; as 
also on the observation and remarks we have 
made on ancient and modern churches." (Dis. 
page 5th.) 

From these testimonies it is evident that you 
do not regard your peculiar polity as of divine 
authority, but an experiment founded, not upon 
the Bible, or drawn from the Bible, but "founded 
upon the experience of a long series of years, 
and also on the observations and remarks which 
we [the Bishops] have made on ancient and mod- 
ern churches." Jesus did not build his church 
on the u experience and observations " of bish- 
ops or laymen, but upon the truth confessed by 
Peter, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the liv- 
ing God." 

Mr. Inskip, your historian, fully admits the 
humanism of Methodism, in the following words : 
" Before entering upon the merits of the discus- 
sion suggested in the title-page, the reader is re- 
quested to pause a moment, to contemplate the 
life and character of the founder of Methodism, 
John Wesley;" p. 18. 

Here it is distinctly claimed that John Wesley 
was the founder of Methodism ; while every 
one knows that Jesus Christ was the founder 
of Christianity and the Christian church. There- 
fore Methodism is not Christianity, yourselves 
being judges. Once more; Mr. Inskip says, "A 



152 LETTERS TO 

more wise or # better arranged system of religious 
and moral enterprise could not have been con- 
ceived. Of course, like all other human institu- 
tions, it has defects and imperfections. " (Inskip, 
p. 65.) 

Let the above suffice. Of course, with the 
above facts before his mind, no one would ex- 
pect to find the peculiar polity of the M. E. 
Church in the Bible. It is not there. "It is 
peculiar." Neither the bishops nor historians 
of the church claim to have found any traces of 
it there, and as honest men frankly admit that it 

is a HUMAN INSTITUTION. 

I could not, therefore, embrace it. And find- 
ing that there was a divine U form of doctrine," 
and that the Lord Jesus had established a govern- 
ment over his church, which was definitely set 
out in the New Testament, and that the Chris- 
tian church held the doctrine and submitted to 
the government of the Lord Jesus Christ, as laid 
down in the New Testament, received and prac- 
ticed by the church of Christ in the beginning, 
without addition or amendment, I became satisfied 
that it was the church of Grod, and accordingly 
united with her. Was I not right, Doctor? 

My third reason is, " Because, as an organism, 
it is not of God, but of the fathers. 11 

We have already anticipated most that we 
have to say under this head. I recognize many 
good and pious people in the M. E. Church, who 



BISHOP MORRIS. 153 

are no doubt Christians, because they have be- 
lieved on the name of the Lord Jesus, and have 
obeyed his gospel ; yet the M. E. Church, as a 
peculiar organism, is not of God, but of the fa- 
thers. As such, it was founded by Mr. Wesley 
and his coadjutors, about a century ago, and 
every one knows that no such peculiar organism 
ever existed before, under any dispensation. On 
the other hand, the church of Jesus Christ is a 
divine organism, being "fitly framed together 
and compacted by that which every joint sup- 
plieth." Jesus says of his church, u Upon this 
rock I will build my church." The church, as a 
divine organism, was fully organized on the day 
of Pentecost, when Jesus, the Head of the church, 
was glorified, and sent down the Holy Spirit, some 
seventeen hundred years before Methodism was 
founded by the fathers. 

God is glorified in this church, as Paul de- 
clares : " To whom be glory in the church, 
throughout all ages, world without end." The 
conclusion I drew from this was, that if God 
was glorified in the church, he was not glorified 
out of it — and therefore I united with the church 
of Christ, that I might be enabled to " glorify 
God in my body and spirit, which are the 
Lord's." It was with me simply a question be- 
tween the divine and the human organisms. Was 
I not right, Doctor? 

My fourth reason was, "Because the Ninth 



154 LETTERS TO 

Article of your religious creed contradicts the 
word of God.'' 1 I will here quote the objection- 
able article in full, from your Discipline. Here 
it is: 

tc IX. We are accounted righteous before 
God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior 
Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works 
or deservings ; wherefore, that we are justified 
by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine and 
very full of comfort." 

As the contradictions are palpable, and can be 
seen at a glance, I need not elaborate them. I 
shall only note two contradictions. 1. " We are 
accounted righteous before God only for the 
merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by 
faith." This contradicts the apostle John in 
the following declaration : " Little children, let 
no man deceive you ; he that doeth righteous- 
ness is righteous, even as he is righteous," 1 
John iii. 

Your ninth article declares, as we have seen, 
11 that we are accounted righteous before God 
only for the merit of Christ by faith," while 
John declares that we are accounted righteous 
before God when we do righteousness. Now I 
reason thus: if it is for doing righteousness 
that we are declared righteous before God, it is 
not by faith only in the merit of Christ. All 
can see the discrepancy here. 

2. The second contradiction is still more palpa- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 155 

ble. In conclusion of your ninth article above 
quoted, you affirm that u we are justified by faith 
only is a most wholesome doctrine and very full 
of comfort." In this you flatly contradict the 
apostle James, where he says : 

" Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, 
being alone." Your article says, " we are justi- 
fied by faith only." James contradicts this, and 
declares that such faith is dead, being alone. 
And you know that dead faith can justify no 
one. But let us look at the 21st verse of the 
second chapter of James. Here he says, u Was 
not Abraham, our father, justified by works, 
when he had offered Isaac his son upon the 
altar?" 

Your ninth article contradicts this by saying 
that u we are justified by faith only. 11 Now, 
Doctor, which shall we believe, the Discipline 
or the inspired apostle James? Both can not 
be true. Bat if any one has failed to see the 
contradiction, I will ask them to read the 21th 
verse, as follows : " Ye see then how that by 
works a man is justified, and not by faith only." 
Now I am sure you see the contradiction. The 
Apostle says it il is not by faith only," and your 
ninth article contradicts this and declares that it 
11 is by faith only." Every one can see it. If 
the apostle James had been discussing the ques- 
tion of justification with the bishops of the M. 
E. Church, or Mr. Wesley himself, with your 



156 LETTERS TO 

ninth article before him, he could not have con- 
tradicted it more pointedly than he has done in 
the above passage. I have no doubt you and 
many others of your brethren have seen and de- 
plored the contradiction. Why then have you 
not taken the proper steps to have it changed ? 

My fifth reason is " Because she practices in- 
fant sprinkling, which is an unmeaning and un- 
scriptural ceremony" This ceremony is unmean- 
ing, because it represents nothing. Baptism, 
which is an immersion in the whole body in wa- 
ter, is a very significant ceremony, as it sets forth 
the doctrine of Christ, and is in fact the u form 
of the doctrine." The Lord's supper is a mon- 
umental institution, and sets forth the death of 
Christ for the sins of the world. And immersion 
is also a monumental institution, and sets forth 
his burial and resurrection from the grave. In 
this we can see a fitness and significance. 

Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose 
again from the dead. So we die to sin, and are 
buried with him by immersion, and rise again 
from the grave of water to live a new life. But 
we can see no meaning or fitness in the sprink- 
ling of a few drops of water upon the forehead 
of a young child, or an adult. What does it 
signify? Not the inward work of the Holy 
Spirit upon the heart, for the promise of the 
Spirit is only received by faith, and infants can 
exercise no faith. To infants, then, it is an un- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 157 

meaning ceremony. To adults it signifies noth- 
ing. You do not pretend that the u inward 
grace," or "work of the Spirit," is at all con- 
nected with your sprinkling ceremony, or that 
it necessarily follows the rite, at any future time. 
It is therefore an unmeaning ceremony to both 
adults and infants. 

That it is an unscriptural ceremony, I need 
hardly take time to prove. But I will briefly 
examine a few of your proofs and arguments in 
favor of the practice. 1 now affirm that in every 
casr of baptism recorded in the New Testament, 
believers, and not infants, were the subjects of 
the ordinance; and immersion, and not sprink- 
ling, the action, or as you term it, " the mode." 

Your principal argument in favor of infant 
baptism is based upon the assumption that bap- 
tism came in the room of Jewish circumcision ; 
and that as infants were the subjects of that 
bloody rite, so infants are properly entitled to 
baptism. But I answer, this is a mere assump- 
tion, and therefore the conclusion you draw from 
it is false. The Old Covenant, with all its rites 
and ceremonies and institutions, was typical of 
the New Covenant, and its institutions and cere- 
monies ; but circumcision was not the type of 
Christian baptism. There would be no aptness 
in the figure. Jewish circumcision was a pecu- 
liar rite, and none but the male infants were en- 
titled to it. While baptism is commanded to 



158 LETTERS TO 

every creature who hears and believes the gos- 
pel, both male and female. There was nothing 
like "sprinkling" about circumcision, and con- 
sequently it could not be a type of your sprink- 
ling, 

But while I deny that baptism came in the 
room of circumcision, I admit that it was typi- 
cal. And we are not left in doubt as to its an- 
titype. Paul says, "In whom also ye are cir- 
cumcised with the circumcision made without 
hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the 
flesh by the circumcision of Christ." (Col. ii. 
11.) Again, the same Apostle says, " But he is 
a Jew who is one inwardly ; and circumcision is 
that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the let- 
ter." (Rom. ii. 29.) 

Jewish circumcision was "outward in the flesh," 
while its antitype, Christian circumcision, is in- 
ward, and of the heart. Infant sprinkling is out- 
ward, and upon the forehead of the babe, and is 
always, I believe, performed with hands. This 
can not then be Christian circumcision, as it is 
inward and ' ' made without hands." The change 
of heart and pardon of sins is the antitype, or 
circumcision of Christ, and* is done by the Lord 
himself. It is true that it stands connected with 
Christian immersion, as you will see by reading 
Col. ii. 11, 12. 

This being the chief corner-stone of the whole 
edifice of Pedobaptism, and being a mere asmmp- 






BISHOP MORRIS. 159 

tion, having no foundation in fact, it follows that 
the theory itself is false ! Here I might rest the 
matter, but I wish to examine a few of your prin- 
cipal proofs. You quote the commission: 

" (xo into all the world, and preach the gospel 
to every croature ; he that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved, and he that believeth not 
shall be damned." You then ask with an air of 
peculiar triumph, "Are not infants creatures? 
and if so, entitled to baptism? " 

In answer, they are not creatures in the sense 
of the commission. The creatures of the com- 
mission were all capable of believing and obeying 
the gospel, or rejecting it. Infants are not capa- 
ble of doing either, as you very well know. But 
suppose I admit for one moment, just to test the 
argument, that infants are a part of " every crea- 
ture," spoken of in the commision,and let us read 
the commission with this interpretation, and we 
shall be able to see the u nakedness of the land." 
We read thus : "Go preach the gospel to every 
adult and every infant; every adult and infant 
who believes the gospel and is baptized shall be 
saved, and every adult and infant that believes 
not shall be damned." 

How does it suit you, Doctor ? The paraphrase 
is correct, if your doctrine is true. But such a 
construction of the commission, so far from prov- 
ing that infants are the proper subjects of baptism, 
it proves the awful doctrine of universal infant 



160 LETTERS TO 

damnation ! ! I do not charge you, my dear 
Bishop, with believing this monstrous doctrine, 
but I do say such is the legitimate conclusion to 
which must come from such premises ! " He 
that believeth not shall be damned." Infants 
can not believe, and therefore if they are a part 
of the creatures mentioned in the commission, 
then they must be damned ! 

But the premises are false, and the conclusion 
wrong. Infants are not referred to at all in the 
commission, and no infant will ever be damned 
for not believing, or for any other cause. All 
infants will be saved. 

But you argue that you have examples of in- 
fant baptism in the household baptisms recorded 
in the New Testament. I suppose a man of your 
information and good sense would hardly rely 
upon the household baptisms to prove infant 
sprinkling, but the "inferior clergy" of the M. 
E. Church quote them as furnishing an unan- 
swerable argument in favor of your peculiar 
practice. Let us briefly examine the history of 
these baptisms. There are only four household 
baptisms recorded. 

1. Lydia and her household. A record of this 
case is found in Acts xvi. 13-15. " And we sat 
down, and spake unto the women which resorted 
thither." Who did the Apostles preach to on 
this occasion? To the women and infants? — 
No. To the women only. And the Lord opened 



BISHOP MORRIS. 161 

Lydia's heart, and she attended to the things 
spoken of by Paul, and she was baptized and 
her household. All women. The baptism was 
no doubt performed in the river, upon the mar- 
gin of which they were assembled. No allusion 
to infants. And at the 40rh verse they are called 
11 brethren,'' not " infants." 

2. In the same chapter we have the history of 
the baptism of the Jailor and his household. 
At 32d verse Luke says that Paul and Silas 
" spake unto him (the Jailor) the word of the 
Lord, and to all that were in his house." Sen- 
sible men do not preach to infants ; hence we 
must conclude that this household were all ca- 
pable of hearing and believing the gospel. And 
after their baptism Luke says, " He rejoiced, be- 
lieving in God, with all his house." From this it 
is evident there were no infants among them, for 
they all believed, and all rejoiced with the Jailor. 

3. The next case is that of Cornelius, recorded 
in 10th chapter of Acts. There is no mention 
of infants in this household, but on the contrary 
they are spoken of as " hearing," " believing." 
" The Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the 
word." They " spake with tongues and magni- 
fied God.'' Infants never speak with tongues. 
u They prayed. him to tarry certain days." In- 
fants never do so. There was, therefore, no in- 
fants in this household. 

6 



162 LETTERS TO 

4. The last case is the " household of Stepha- 
nas." Concerning the baptism of this house- 
hold we know but little. Paul refers to it twice, 
1 Cor. i. 16 and 1 Cor. xvi. 15. In the first he 
simply says he " baptized the household of Ste- 
phanus." And in the last place he says, " I be- 
seech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Ste 
phanus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and 
that they have addicted themselves to the minis- 
try of the saints,) that ye submit yourselves unto 
such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and 
laboreth. ,, 

Infants are not in the habit of u addicting 
themselves to the ministry/' nor do they help 
with the Apostles and labor in the gospel. This 
household all did ; therefore there were no in- 
fants in it. Men do not submit themselves to 
infants ; yet Paul exhorted the brethren at Cor- 
inth to "submit themselves" to this household : 
therefore there were no infants in it. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 



LETTER XIV. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — My sixth reason for not being 
a Methodist is, 4k Because the M. E. Church re- 
ceives into her communion and fellowship uncon- 
verted persons, contrary to the Scriptures.^ That 
this objection to your church polity is well taken, 
must be apparent to every candid reader who 
will carefully examine the following facts and 
testimony. Your church is made up of three 
very distinct classes of members, as follows: 

1. Those who profess to have been converted to 
God, and to enjoy the pardon of sins through 
the blood of Jesus Christ. Such persons pro- 
fess to be "justified by faith only " — to have the 
love of God shed abroad in their hearts by the 
Holy Spirit. And a portion of this first class 
profess complete sanctification ; by which 1 un- 
derstand them to claim sinless perfection, in 
thought, word and action. 

2. The second class of members are your pro- 
bationers. T s class is numerous and respecta- 
ble in all your churches. The only qualification 
required of them, in order to membership, is, 
that they shall "evidence a desire to flee from 
the wrath to come and to be saved from sin.' 



164 LETTERS TO 

Those who evidence such desire may become 
members of your church for six months on 
trial ; and if they continue to evidence such 
desire, at the end of the six months' trial, they 
may continue members of your church without 
conversion, or regeneration. 

Your Discipline, the fundamental law of your 
church, clearly teaches the above. And such 
unconverted persons may live in your church 
to the end of life without ever experiencing a 
change of heart. 

3. The third class of members in your church 
is composed of infants, who have been sprinkled 
and received into it upon the faith of one or both 
of their parents. This is a numerous class, and 
become members of your church, not because 
they are believers, or have been converted, but 
because they are the children of parents who 
were members before them. Therefore, the ba- 
sis of their membership is ordinary generation, 
and not regeneration— flesh and blood, and not 
spirit. 

It would perhaps be a fair estimate of the rel- 
ative strength of these elements of membership 
in your church, to say that one half of the nom- 
inal membership of your church, comprising the 
three classes above mentioned, do not profess re- 
ligion at all, and are therefore unconverted per- 
sons, according to your own records. This, I 
think you will admit, is a liberal estimate of 



BISHOP MORRIS. 165 

your membership. And what a startling fact 
is here developed ! You claim, I belierve, to 
have a membership of one million in the world. 
And according to our estimate above, you have 
five hundred thousand unconverted persons in 
your church. 

I have conversed with some very intelligent 
Methodists, who placed the proportion of un- 
converted persons in your church at a much 
higher figure than I have in the above calcula- 
tion. I have knowo many members of your 
church who have joined on probation, without 
religion, and some who have lived and died 
members in an unconverted state, according to 
their own profession. 

I recollect of becoming acquainted with an 
old gentleman, a few years ago, at the house of 
his son in-law in Kentucky, whose head was 
white with the heats of some seventy summers. 
He was a Methodist, and greatly opposed to the 
''Christian Church," and very zealous for the 
M. E. Church, of which he informed me he had 
been a member, if I recollect right, for some 
forty years. But in the course of our friendly 
conversation, he frankly acknowledged that he 
had no religion, never having been converted! 
He said that he knew he was then, and always 
had been, an unpardoned sinner, and that if he 
should die in his present condition, hell would 
be his portion. 



166 LETTERS TO 

I asked the old father if he was not still seek- 
ing religion ? He answered, that, he was and had 
been constantly seeking religion for the last forty 
years, and expected to seek on as long as he lived, 
and to die seeking. I asked him if he would not 
listen to me, while I would read him a few scrip- 
tures, and show him the defects in the system of 
Methodism, which he had no doubt honestly em- 
braced and maintained all his life. To this he 
shook his head, remarking at the same time that 
he had no desire to hear an argument on the sub- 
ject — he was satisfied with the system, and had 
fully made up his mind to abide by the conse- 
quences; and he did not now, at his advanced 
age, wish to have his mind disturbed by hearing 
an argument against it. 

And this case, my dear Bi>hop, is only one of 
a thousand of the same kind. The very struc- 
ture and genius of Methodism admits of and 
contemplates a large unconverted element in its 
membership ; and you know that such an element 
exists in your churches. I once heard Bishop 
Waugh say, in a sermon which he preached at 
an annual conference, at BSoomington, Ind., " I 
charge the Methodist preachers to be more in- 
dustrious — to imitate the old pioneer preachers 
in zeal and labors for the salvation of sinners 
and the advancement of Methodism. Owing to 
the laziness and want of zeal among the preach-* 
ei's, the exhorters and class leaders and members 



BISHOP MORRIS. 167 

have become in a measure lulce warm. We have 
now near a million of members in the world, one 
half of whom are none the better for bting Method- 
ists ! " What say you, Bishop Morris? Was 
Bishop Waugh correct in his estimate of the un- 
converted element, nominally members of your 
church ? If he was, then I am right in my cal- 
culations. 

And I know you will not deny that a case 
may occur where a whole Methodist church may 
be composed of the unconverted element. The 
church may be a sound, orthodox Methodist 
church, according to the Discipline and usages 
of the church, and not a converted person in it ! 
It might occur in this way : Suppose a Meth- 
odist church organized in the usual way, com- 
posed of some converted persons and some un- 
converted, as all Methodist churches are. Time 
rolls on, and no conversions take place in the 
church, and one by one the converted persons 
move away and die, and some fall from grace. 
All the accessions to their number are seekers, 
not converted. Thus the converted element, in 
some form, perishes ; all pass out of the church, 
and leave only the unconverted seekers, compos- 
ing the church. Yes, and the preacher, too, 
may be an unconverted man, and yet a Methodist 
preacher — as John Wesley was for some ten 
years after he commenced preaching Method- 
ism! But still this would be a Methodist 



168 LETTERS TO 

church within the meaning of the law in the 
case. m 

You may say the case is an unreasonable one, 
and will perhaps never occur. I answer, it may 
never occur ; but still it is a supposable case, and 
may occur. It is not a probable, but it is a pos- 
sible case. 

I could not, therefore, as an honest man, with 
the New Testament before me, unite with the 
M. E. Church, composed in part of mere seek- 
ers — unconverted persons, and which might exist 
without a single converted person in it, either 
preacher or people, and still be the M. E. Church. 
And especially when I found, from reading the 
.New Testament, that in the beginning none 
were recognized as members of the church of 
God, except they were converted and had the 
spirit of Christ. Let us look at a few passages 
of Scripture that go to establish this position. 

The first passage I will introduce is the decla- 
ration of Jesus to Nicodemus : u Jesus answer- 
ed, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not 
enter into the kingdom of God ; " John iii. 5. 

All commentators and theologians agree that 
the " kingdom of God' ' here referred to, was 
the visible church, which Christ came into the 
world to establish ; and that the new birth is 
conversion. This is plain and unequivocal, and 
proves that Christ did not recognize any one as 



BISHOP MORRIS. 169 

a member of his kingdom, or church, till he 
was "born again," or converted. But in the 
face of this plain declaration of the Master, you 
take into your church a multitude of persons 
who do not claim to have been " born again," or 
converted. 

Again, "And Jesus called a little child unto 
him, and sat him in the midst of them, and said, 
Verily, I say unto you, except ye be converted, 
and become as little children, ye shall not enter 
into the kingdom of heaven ; " Matt, xviii. 2, 3. 
In this passage Jesus, the great Teacher and 
Plead of the church, emphatically says that, 
* Except a man be converted, he shall not enter 
into the kingdom of heaven," or church. If 
you had been among the disciples on that inter- 
esting occasion, with your present views, and 
zeal for the traditions of the fathers, would you 
not have said to the Lord, " Blessed Master, 
are you not a little mistaken ? Our fathers have 
adopted, as a 'prudential regulation,' the plan of 
taking into our church all persons who 'desire 
to flee from the wrath to come, and 1 e saved 
from sin,' unconverted seekers, and we have 
found that it was a ' capital hdt.' But according 
to your teaching, dear Lord, one half of our 
membership is unchurched! 11 But Jesus says, 
" Except ye be converted ye shall not enter into 
the kingdom," or church of Christ ! So you see, 
my dear Doctor, that your practice upon this 



170 LETTERS TO 

point is a palpable violation of the law of the 
Lord ! 

The three thousand additions to the church or 
kingdom of heaven, on the day of Pentecost, the 
very day the church was first organized, were all 
converted persons. They all heard the gospel 
preached on that day, by Peter and the rest of 
the Apostles, and believed it, were pierced in 
their hearts, inquired what they must do — were 
told what to do in order to be saved, and they 
gladly received the word, obeyed the gospel, 
were pardoned, received the gift of the Holy 
Spirit, and continued steadfastly in the Apos- 
tles 7 doctrine, and in the fellowship, and in 
breaking of bread, and in prayers." So you see, 
by reading the second chapter of Acts, that 
none were added to them on that day, but the 
converted and saved. And you will see, too, that 
they were not taken in on six months' trial. 
They were full members the very first day. 

Read also the third chapter of Acts', and you 
will find that some five thousand more were 
added, but not till after they were all converted. 
The condition of such membership, as laid down 
by Peter, was the following: " Repent ye there- 
fore, and be converted, that your sins may be 
blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall 
come from the presence of the Lord ; ' ' Acts 
iii. 19. 

This being the condition laid down by the 



BISHOP MORRIS. 171 

apostle Peter, it follows that none were received 
into the church but those who complied with the 
conditions thus laid down. But I need not mul- 
tiply quotations to prove what you do not dis- 
pute, and what every reader of the New Testa- 
ment knows to be true, that no one was admit- 
ted into the primitive church until he was con- 
verted. In this matter your church is wholly 
unlike the apostolic or primitive church, and 
knowing the fact, I could not consistently join 
the M. E. Church. The prophet Jeremiah, 
xxxi. 31, speaking of the church of God under 
the new covenant, declares concerning the mem- 
bership, " for all shall know me, from the least 
of them to the greatest of them." If the 
Prophet was correct then, no unconverted per- 
son was ever to be admitted into the church un- 
der the New Covenant. 

But I did unite with the church of God, when 
I was converted. Acting upon my own faith, I 
confessed the Lord Jesus before men, and then 
I " obeyed from the heart the form of the doc- 
trine " delivered to the church in the beginning. 
Being thus converted to God, I enjoyed the wit- 
ness of the Spirit, and was recognized as a mem- 
ber of the family of Christ on earth, not on trial 
for six months, but in full fellowship on the very 
first day. 

This letter is not quite so long as the average 
of the former letters, but as I can not say all I 



172 LETTERS TO 

wish to say in this, I will close it here, and in my 
next, which will be the last of the series, I will 
briefly give my seventh reason. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 173 



LETTER XV. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D.: 

My Dear Sir — I now come to my seventh 
reason for not being a Methodist, which is the 
following : " Because the M. E. Church has set 
up a mere human invention, the anxious seat or 
mourning bench, which is not only without any 
authority in the New Testament, but is positively 
contrary to and subversive of the gospel of Jesus 
Christ" 

I am aware that some other sects have used 
the "anxious seat/' and so far this objection 
lies equally against them ; yet I believe the M. 
E. Church was the first sect who used it, and by 
the right of discovery it belongs to her. We 
shall therefore treat it as a Methodist institution, 
and an important part of your revival machin- 
ery. What would a Methodist camp meeting be 
without the anxious seat ? It would, no doubt, 
be regarded by Methodists generally as a very 
dry and tame affair, not worth keeping up. It 
would be wanting in what is called the u power 
of the Spirit to convert sinners.' ' It is, there- 
fore, essential to your success in conducting 
your great revivals. But I need hardly say to 
one so well informed as Bishop Morris, that you 



174 LETTERS TO 

have neither precept not example for the anx- 
ious seat, in the Bible. And so far as I am in- 
formed, you do not claim Scripture authority for 
it. I once heard a Methodist preacher trying to 
prove the divinity of the " mourner's bench, " 
by which I will illustrate this point. He said, 
44 Bat our opposers say to us, where is your 
Scripture for the mourning bench ?" "Well," 
continued he, 44 1 will tell you ; God blessed my 
soul at the mourning bench ; and that is as good 
as any Scripture. " This was the best, and as far 
as I recollect the only testimony he gave. This 
was a tacit admission that there was no Scrip- 
ture authority for it. 

The truth is, when your societies began to 
spread in America, you 44 felt the need of some- 
thing" to aid you in your revivals, and you 
adopted the anxious seat, or mourning bench, as 
an experiment, and its "practical working" was 
satisfactory, and so you have retained it as a 
permanent institution. But you know it is a 
mere stroke of human policy, a 44 capital hit." 

I have been present at some of your revival 
meetings, when sinners were invited, exhorted, 
urged, and in some instances forced to come for- 
ward to the mourning bench, to 44 get religion" — 
14 to come and receive the prayers of the people 
of God." Under these exciting appeals I have 
seen scores, of both sexes, rush to the altar to 
be prayed for, under the vague impression that 



BISHOP MORRIS. 175 

these good people were in some sense interces- 
sors or mediators between them and God. At 
the anxious seat they were told by the preachers, 
and others, that the moment they would give up 
their hearts to God, they would experience the 
change called u getting religion." I have known 
these poor honest creatures to remain in the altar 
for many hours, praying and agonizing them- 
selves and being prayed for by their honest but 
misguided Christian friends ; and during the 
long struggle, some would "get through," and 
others would remain in deep sorrow perhaps for 
weeks and months, and finally become sceptical 
in religion, and turn away from it as a fable ! 

How different was the practice of the Apostles. 
When the inquiring multitude on Pentecost 
cried out in the anguish of their hearts, saying, 
4; Men and brethren, what shall we do?" the 
Apostles simply answered, "Repent and be 
baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" 

Now, if ever there was a time when the anx- 
ious seat might have been introduced with ad- 
vantage, if indeed it were of God, the day of 
Pentecost was the time. And I presume, Doc- 
tor, if you or some of your revival preachers had 
been there, when Peter told the mourners to 
11 Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins,'Yyou .would 



176 LETTERS TO 

have stopped him in something like the follow- 
ing strain : "Peter, you are certainly wrong in 
teaching mourners to be ' baptized for the remis- 
sion of sins.' In fact, that is ' Campbellism.' 
Tell them to come forward to the anxious seat, 
and be prayed for, and perhaps they may ! get 
through ' that way." 

And by the way, Dr. Morris, did not the anx- 
ious seat, or mourning bench, come down from 
Rome? I admit that the Roman Catholics did 
not, and do not use it exactly in the form we find 
it practiced in the M. E. Church. But they 
pray to the Virgin Mary, and the saints, and ask 
their intercession and mediation in behalf of 
the living and the dead And hence the priests 
have come to be looked upon as mediators, and 
their prayers are sought by the ignorant as a 
means of grace and pardon of sins. But upon- 
the subject of the anxious seat, I find my views 
so well expressed in the Baptist Record of June 
28, 1843, that I beg leave to copy it, or at least a 
portion of it. This will show that the Baptist 
Record, the organ of the "American Baptist 
Publication and Sunday School Society," pub- 
lished in Philadelphia, agrees with me in my es- 
timate of the anxious seat, or mourning bench. 
This is a part of a series of articles on the "As- 
pects of the present revivals on the churches, 
No. 6." The writer says: 

"At the close of the last article, I intimated 



BISHOP MORRIS. 177 

that in this I should state my objections to 
4 anxious seats,' as operating injuriously on the 
religious character of the inquirers themselves. 
To this, then, I shall now address myself. I 
may safely take it for granted that the religious 
character of a religious man is beneficially or in- 
juriously affected, according as his religious 
opinions are correct or incorrect; and this being 
assumed, I can see great danger of his embrac- 
ing erroneous religious opinions, from the prac- 
tice in question. It has been already stated, 
that those under religious concern are urged to 
take the ' anxious seat,' with a view to commit- 
ting themselves on the side of God and religion; 
and were this all, the following observations 
would be without foundation. But it is not so. 
They are urged by this act to ' ask the prayers of 
God's people ' in their behalf. 

" Now I am far from intimating that the ef- 
fectual fervent prayer of a righteous man is with- 
out avail ; and as far from forgetting that when- 
ever two such agree as touching any thing they 
shall ask, they have a gracious promise for their 
encouragement ; neither do I forget that in- 
spired men ask the prayers of the churches on 
their behalf. The danger, in the case before us, 
arises from the moral condition, at the time, of 
those who are encouraged to ask the prayers of 
Christians. Their condition is one of extreme 
spiritual ignorance, and of this they are just be- 



178 LETTERS TO 

ginning to be sensible ; the sense of their ignor- 
ance expresses itself in the inquiry, 4 What 
shall we do ?' ' What must we do to be saved ?' 
If they put not forth virtually these inquiries, 
they are not properly to be considered 'anxious/ 
and hence the 4 anxious seat ' is not their place. 

"But if they make these inquiries, what an- 
swer do they receive ? * What shall you do to 
be saved ? Ask the prayers of God's people, by 
coming to the anxious seat,' says the minister- 
Now the minister is the religious teacher of those 
people ; and he thus teaches them (unwittingly, 
I acknowledge) another way of salvation than 
the true one. They receive the impression that 
God's people are mediators between them and 
himself; and thus, that there is not 4 one me- 
diator only.' Is this teaching calculated to 
exalt Christ, in their estimation, as the only 
foundation of a sinner's hope? Will this teach- 
ing produce a race of Christians of the class of 
him who, on his way to the stake, said, * None 
but Christ; none but Christ?' In such teach- 
ing, I ask, where is the blood ? 

u But this subject has other aspects. If min- 
isters of Christ will thoroughly reflect on the 
tendencies of this practice, it will, I am certain, 
be speedily abandoned. It may startle some of 
them to learn that, by this measure, (not a new 
one, as will soon appear,) they are preparing the 
way for one of the grossest abominations of Pa- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 179 

pal idolatiy to overshadow the land. l Howbeit, 
they mean it not so ; neither corneth it into their 
heart.' I allude to the worship of saints. 'Strike 
but hear me,' as the Grecian said. Brethren, 
cast not this paper aside, under the conviction 
that the writer is mad ; but accompany him ot 
the page of history, and trace with him the act- 
ual origin of the worship cf saints in the Papal 
church ; and you will say, 4 How like this is, to 
this!' Idolatry in the church did not rise at 
once. There was a ; day of small things ' which 
was overlooked ; and behold, whereunto did it 
grow ? But to the page of history is our appeal, 

" The actual origin of the worship of saints, 
is as follows : In the third century, Tertullian, 
an illustrious pastor of Carthage, holds the fol- 
lowing language in his work, de penitentia : " It 
is necessary to change our dress and food, we 
must put on sackcloth and ashes, we must re- 
nounce all comfort, and adorning of the body, 
and falling down before the priest, implore the 
intercession of the brethren.' Here is the origin 
both of mortifications, penances, etc., and saint 
worship. l Behold,' says D'Aubigne on this 
page of Tertullian, ' man turned aside from 
God, and turned back upon himself.' 

u Now I ask whether, so far as the practice in 
question is concerned, there is no identity of im- 
port in the expressions, l Ask the prayers of God's 
people,' and ' Implore the intercession of the 



180 LETTERS TO 

brethren V But the latter is shown, by the pen 
of history, to have been the origin of saint wor- 
ship ; and for what the former shall bring upon 
the churches, the ministers of the present age 
will be responsible. l Consider of it, take advice, 
and speak yourgmind ;' Jud. xix. 30. How nat- 
ural the progress is, in a mind spiritually en- 
lightened, from 4 asking the prayers of God's 
people,' to the idolatry of the church of Rome, a 
moment's reflection will convince any one. 

" The people on whose prayers the inquirer is 
taught to rely, are his neighbors, acquaintances 
and relatives — persons whom he knows, from 
daily intercourse with them, have many imper- 
fections, and are, indeed, very ordinary saints ; 
and he reasons thus : ' If their prayers on my 
behalf will be prevalent, how much more so the 
prayers of ministers ; and if the prayers of saints 
on earth are prevalent, a fortiori, the prayers of 
those in heaven will be more so. If the prayers 
of common saints avail, much more will those of 
eminent ones, as Paul and Peter, James and 
John i and especially will those of the Virgin 
avail. If saints, the best of whom have sinned, 
can be prevalent intercessors, much more angels 
who have never sinned.' Is not this progress to 
idolatry, palpably downward though it be, yet 
natural to a darkened mind ? And who can tell 
whither it will run? 

" But I have yet another objection to the 



BISHOP MORRIS. 181 

practice in question. It tends to produce in the 
after life of the convert (real or supposed) spir- 
itual pride. He is supposed to have become a 
Christian under the persuasion that the prayers 
of Christians contributed to his conversion. 
They were intercessors with God for him. But 
now he has become a saint ; he is promoted to the 
office and character of a mediator with God for 
others. Can he dispossess his mind of the 
thought that the prayers of saints, and of him- 
self among them, possess an efficacy before God, 
as such ; that their prayers stand in less need of 
the Savior's intercession than those of sinners, 
to render them acceptable? I had almost said 
must it not be the case, that the searcher of hearts 
reads, in his spirit, some such expression as, 
1 God, I thank thee that I am not as other men 
are — nor even as this sinner ' — 'Stand by thy- 
self; come not near me ; I am holier than thou?' 
And this evil, if it exist, is to be attributed to 
the errors of his first instructions ; and it be- 
comes his instructors to inquire to what extent 
they will be held responsible/ ' 

Now, Doctor, it seems to me that my seventh 
objection to the M. E. Church is well taken, and 
certainly well sustained by the logical reasoning 
of this Baptist scribe. The anxious seat, in 
your practice, is made to take the place that 
baptism occupied in the teaching and practice of 
the Apostles, and thus the law of the Lord is 



182 LETTERS TO 

made void by your traditions. You tell anxious 
souls to come to the anxious seat, to get pardon ; 
but the Apostles told such to V repent and be 
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re- 
mission of sins," or pardon. 

With these facts before my mind, I could not 
be a Methodist. But I found the Christian 
church " contending earnestly for the faith once 
delivered to the saints," and preaching repent 
ance and remission of sins, just as the inspired 
Apostles preached it, and I united with her, and 
/ know we are right, and can not he wrong. 
With these seven reasons, I close this series of 
letters. And now may the blessing of God rest 
upon you, and all who read these letters, and save 
us all from delusion. Amen. 

Yours tiuly, J. M. Mathes. 



BISHOP MORRIS. 183 



LETTER XVI. 

Thomas A. Morris, D. D. : 

My Dear Sir — As this series of letters would 
hardly be considered complete without a more 
thorough examination of your Episcopacy, it 
has seemed good to us to devote this closing 
let f er to an investigation of that subject. Stand- 
ing as you are, upon the very confines of the eter- 
nal world, having passed your u three score and 
ten," it is fair to presume, that human passion, 
and party prejudice, if they ever had a place in 
your heart, have ceased to have a controlling in- 
fluence over you, and that you can now listen 
calmly to the voice of the past, as uttered in 
history, and in the Book of God. 

I, too, have passed over on to the western slope 
of the hill of life ; and though your junior by a 
quarter of a century perhaps, still I have had a 
large experience, as a public teacher of Chris- 
tianity. And you will permit me to say, that 
my whole life has been an honest, earnest effort 
to learn " the truth as it is in Jesus." Neither 
you nor I can have any possible interest in be- 
ing in error upon this or any other subject. 
Soon we shall stand before the Judgment Seat 
of Christ, where Bishops will be just like com. 



184 LETTERS TO 

mon men. No more respect will there be paid 
to a Bishop's " Mitre' 1 than to a Dutchman's 
"cap." Every man will be judged and rewarded 
according to their works. And the rule of judg- 
ment will not be your " most excellent disci- 
pline/ ? and prudential rules and regulations; 
but we shall be judged by the Word of God, 
which lives and abides forever. You will suffer 
me, then, to deal plainly and candidly with you 
and your Episcopal dignity. 

You will understand how to discriminate be- 
tween our earnest opposition to your govern- 
ment, and opposition to you and your brethren 
personally. Appealing, therefore, to the good 
sense of you, Dr. Morris, all your Methodist 
brethren, and the rest of mankind, we proceed 
to the investigation of the subject before us. 

We have ample sources of information, as all 
will readily admit, but shall rely chiefly upon 
Mr. Wesley's historians; the writings of O'Kel- 
ley, Kelham, Robinson, Watts, McCain, Inskip, 
and others ; men of acknowledged ability and 
truth, many of whom were contemporaries with 
Mr. Wesley, and were actors in the scenes con- 
nected with the rise of Methodism, and the in- 
auguration of Methodist Episcopacy. We shall 
introduce the subject by a brief account of the 
rise of Episcopacy in English Hierarchy. 

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

The monstrous evils and corruptions and usur- 



BISHOP MORRIS. 185 

pations of the Popes and Church of Rome, loud- 
ly demanded reformation. Accordingly after 
many unsuccessful attempts, in the year 1516, 
the power and authority of Rome received a 
mortal wound in Switzerland, from Ulric Zwin- 
gle, a common, of Zurich, whose extensive learn- 
ing and uncommon sagacity were accompa- 
nied with the most heroic intrepidity and res- 
olution. This successful reformer entirely rooted 
out of Switzerland the Pope's supremacy. And 
in the year 1517, Martin Luther, a Monk of the 
Augustian Order, and professor of Divinity in 
the Academy of Wittemburg, opposed with great 
firmness the papal ambition, and caused the 
throne of spiritual despotism to tremble to its 
very foundation. 

Henry VIII, of England, a thorough Catho- 
lic, had opposed the reformation with great ve- 
hemence, but was finally the principal agent in 
producing the great religious revolution in Eng- 
land. This talented, but depraved monarch, 
sought a divorce from his Queen, Catharine of 
Aragon, that he might marry the beautiful and 
accomplished, Anna Boleyn. For this purpose 
he addressed himself to Clement VII, the reign- 
ing Pope, in order to obtain a divorce from 
Catharine. The Pope was greatly perplexed 
with the case, and vacillated. But finally Henry 
became impatient, and resorted to an expedient 
for the accomplishment of his purpose. He laid 



186 LETTERS TO 

his case before the most learned Universities, 
The result of this was favorable to his views, 
and he obtained his divorce, and married Anna, 
notwithstanding the remonstrance of Clement. 
This separated the English nation from the tyr- 
anny of the Roman Pontiff, as Henry renounced 
the jurisdiction and supremacy of the imperious 
Bishop. Soon after this, Henry VIII was de- 
clared, by the Parliament and people, supreme 
head, on earth, of the Church of England. 

This change, great as it was, was not produc- 
tive of much good to the cause of the* reforma- 
tion ; for the same Monarch who had so reso- 
lutely withdrawn himself from the dominion of 
Rome, yet superstitiously retained the greater 
part of its errors, along with its imperious and 
persecuting spirit. Henry was as much a Pope 
in England, as Clement was at Rome. And the 
form of Church government differed very little. 
Henry governed the Church by Bishops and 
Archbishops, as Rome had done. Indeed, all 
the Episcopal authority that Henry's Bishops 
and Archbishops possessed, or claimed, they 
brought with them out of the church of Rome, 
derived from the bloody fingers of Bishops, 
whose crimes have stamped their character as 
bad men and monsters. 

And you well know, Doctor Morris, that those 
of the English Clergy, ordained after the separ- 
ation, during the reign of Henry, were ordained 



BISHOP MORRIS. 187 

by Henry's Vicegerent, Cromwell, a layman, who 
had no Episcopal authority. 

u Henry, also, was determined to have the 
command of the Ordination, and accordingly ap- 
pointed Cromwell, a layman, whom he called his 
Vicegerent, to ordain persons to the sacred office 
of the ministry, and the Bishops took out and 
acted by commissions in which they were sub- 
altern to the king's Vicegerent.' ' — Echard's His- 
tory, page 299. 

METHODISM IN ENGLAND. 

Mr. John Wesley was born in Epworth, June 
17th, 1703 ; was elected fellow of Lincoln College 
in 1724, and was ordained a Presbyter in the 
Church of England in 1725. John and Charles 
Wesley, Morgan, Whitefield, Hervey, and oth- 
ers went together and visited the prisoners in the 
castle, and the sick poor in the towns. They 
soon attracted public attention, and were ridi- 
culed by the young men of the University, un- 
der the appellation of * l Sacramentarians," "The 
GodlyClub," and afterwards "Methodists." The 
name Methodist, was given them, at first, by one 
of the Professors of Morton College, in allusion 
to an ancient College of Physicians at Rome, 
who were remarkable for putting their patients 
under regimen, and who were therefore called 
Methodists. This being the origin of the name 
Methodist, it is evident that it has no divine 



188 LETTERS TO 

signification, and is just as applicable to a com- 
pany of Pagan Doctors, who had the honor of 
first wearing it, as to the company of young men 
to whom it was now applied in derision. Is it 
not strange, Doctor, that the society adopted 
this unmeaning name, and have gloried in it 
ever since? 

The society increased in England, and were 
governed by Mr. Wesley, through his preachers, 
whom he called around him in conference ; but 
they all retained their standing in the English 
Hierarchy. Nor did Mr. Wesley, or any of his 
preachers, presume to exercise Episcopal func- 
tions. In fact, it is well known that both John 
and Charles Wesley were opposed to the whole 
thing, as will hereafter appear clearly. 

Here is an extract of a letter written by Mr. 
Edmondson, a prominent Methodist preacher 
of that period, to Mr. Kilham on this subject. 
Dr. Coke was figuring for promotion, and the 
question of the Episcopacy had been quietly sug- 
gested. This had startled the Wesleys and many 
of the best men among his preachers ; and in 
view of this Mr. Jonathan Edmondson writes to 
his brother Kilham : 

u From the first I have opposed, as far as I 
could, the Episcopal scheme, formed by our lead- 
ing men [Dr. Coke and others]. Among other 
objections I had to it, the following weighed 
much with me: 1. It appeared unscriptural, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 189 

the words bishop and presbyter being used to 
express the same office. 2d. It was not followed 
in the early ages of Christianity, as Lord King 
and others have proved to a demonstration. 3d. 
Ic is downright priestcraft. ' We must have some 
kind of external pomp and show, to keep vulgar 
minds in awe,' is the language of the high 
priest ; and what so likely to answer the end, as 
the creation of bishops ? They will be looked 
upon as a kind of demi-gods, their sayings will 
be attended to, and their silly dogmas pass into 
laws, and therefore we must have bishops. 
Lastly. The men who formed the plan wish 
to govern with a rod of iron. But shall we be 
such fools as to put ourselves under their power ? 
I am resolved, the moment bishops are appoint- 
ed to bid adieu to the itinerant plan and become 
a local preacher." 

We make the following extract from the letter 
of Mr. Fenwick, who was also a Methodist 
preacher. It was written to Mr. Kilham. He 
says : 

" It is a combination that wants to rule our 
Israel, but I hope God will bring all their deep 
laid schemes to naught. You must observe those 
popular preachers have the very best circuits, 
and they may be afraid, if there come an equal- 
ity of power among the preachers, they may be 
thrust out of their warm nests. But who can 
tell what is passing? We must leave the mat- 



190 LETTERS TO 

ter to the Wise Disposer of all events. Fear not, 
my brother, liberty will soon prevail every 
where. Yea, though all the devils in hell, and 
all the Mathers on earth combine to stop it, 
they will not prevail. God will make us a free 
people." 

Mr. Thomas Taylor, another Methodist 
preacher of this period, writing on the subject of 
adopting the Episcopal form of government, 
says: 

" I wish every preacher in the connexion to 
keep a watchful eye over any three, or four, or 
six ruling the rest. I am much mistaken if 
there is not confidence enough in some spirits to 
aim at it. How much did our Lord guard his 
disciples against becoming Lords and Masters? 
Informing them that one was their Master even 
Christ." 

And Dr. Thomas Coke himself wrote to Mr. 
Kilham, April 29th, 1795, thus: " Hitherto 
we have been, since the death of Mr. Wesley, 
the most perfect aristocracy existing perhaps 
upon the earth. The people have no power. 
We are the whole in the fullest sense that can 
be conceived. If there is any change in power 
of religious liberty, the people certainly should 
have some power.' ' 

But we have said enough, perhaps, upon these 
preliminary matters. We will now proceed to 
the main point in this letter, 



BISHOP MORRIS. 191 

WHENCE CAME METHODIST EPISCOPACY ? 

Was it established by the advice and consent 
of Mr. Wesley ? We answer it was not, as you 
know, Dr. Morris. Mr. Wesley was opposed to 
the whole thing, as we shall prove. And we 
need hardly say to you, that your Episcopacy 
originated in fraud. It is true that the Confer- 
ence of 1784-5, in giving the reason for their 
Episcopacy, says : 

11 Therefore at this Conference we formed our- 
selves into an Independent Church, and follow- 
ed the counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who recom- 
mended the Episcopal mode of church govern- 
ment; we thought it best to become an Episco- 
pal Church, making the Episcopal office elective, 
and the elected superintendent or Bishop, ame- 
nable to the body of ministers or preachers.' ' 

Why did they make the Episcopal office elec- 
tive f Because the succession doctrine had been 
abandoned as a fable. It was declared when 
the church was organized at Baltimore, " That 
the uninterrupted succession of Bishops from 
the apostles can be proved neither from Scrip- 
ture nor antiquity." And thus having given up 
the doctrine of uninterrupted succession, as un- 
tenable, they were obliged to resort to that of 
election. But their making the office of Bishop 
elective had reference to those afterward to be 
promoted to that high dignity, and not to Dr. 



192 LETTERS TO 

Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, who claimed 
to have been appointed by Mr. Wesley himself. 

But Mr. McCain declares that these minutes 
have been interpolated in order to foist the word 
Bishop into them. He says : 

" These minutes are not the true and original 
minutes of the Conference of 1784-5. I argue, — 
1. Because the volume of minutes published 
by the Rev. John Dickens, being out of print, 
it was succeeded by the present volume, which 
purports to be the minutes of the several Con- 
ferences from 1773 to 1813, inclusive. This vol- 
ume was prepared by Mr. Asbury, and every 
thing was omitted that it was thought would in- 
validate the claims of 4 our episcopacy.' 

u 2. The language of these minutes is the 
language of past time. 4 It was unanimously 
agreed,' &c, &c. 

u 3. The term Bishop, which occurs in these 
minutes, was never used before 1787, when Mr. 
Asbury desired the preachers, when they wrote 
to him, to style him Bishop. When Mr. Wes- 
ley was expelled by the Conference of 1787, the 
next year the minutes read thus : 

44 *Q. Who are the Bishops of our Church 
for the United States?' 

44 4 J. . Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury.' Be- 
fore this, they read : 4 Who are our Superin- 
tendents ? ' 

44 4. Because we have the testimony of the 



BISHOP MORRIS. 193 

Rev. J esse Lee, that the minutes were alterad. 
* In the course of this year, (1787,) Mr. Asbury 
reprinted the general minutes, but in a different 
form from what they were before. 1 * * This 
was the first time that our superintendents ever 
gave themselves the title of Bishops in the 
minutes. They changed the title themselves 
without the consent of the Conference ; and 
at the next Conference they asked the preachers 
if the word bishop might stand in the minutes, 
seeing that it was a scriptural name, and the 
meaning of the word bishop, was the same with 
that of superintendent. Some of the preachers 
opposed the alteration", and wished to retain the 
former title, but a majority of the preachers 
agreed to let the word bishop remain." — Lees 
History of Methodism, page 128. 

It is clear, we think, from the foregoing tes- 
timony, that the claim of Episcopal authority 
by Coke and Asbury, was a bald assumption, 
and that the statement in Mr. Asbury's minutes 
that it was by the recommendation and counsel 
of Mr. Wesley, was a fraud upon the people. 
But to establish this beyond a doubt, we here 
give Mr. Wesley's letter to Mr. Asbury, on the 
subject. As soon as Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury 
had announced themselves Bishops in the min- 
utes of Conference Mr. Wesley wrote Mr. As- 



194 LETTERS TO 

bury the following letter. [See Moor's life of 
Wesley, Vol II., page 285. ] 

" London, Sept. 20, 1788. There is, indeed, a 
wide difference between the relation wherein 
you stand to the Americans, and the relation 
wherein I stand to all the Methodists.^ You are 
the elder brother of the American Methodists ; 
I am, under God, the father of the whole family. 
Therefore, I naturally care for you all, in a man- 
ner no other person can do. Therefore I, in a 
measure, provide for you all ; for the supplies 
which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not 
provide were it not for me ; were it not that I 
not only permit him to collect, but support him 
in so doing. 

" But one point, my dear brother, I am afraid 
both the Doctor and you differ from me. I study 
to be little, you study to be great, I creep you 
strut along. I found a school you a college. 
Nay, and call it after your own name ! be- 
ware ! Do not seek to be something! Let me 
be nothing, and Christ be all in all. 

" One instance of this your greatness has given 
me great concern. How can you, how dare you 
suffer yourself to be called a Bishop ! I shud- 
der, I start at the very thought. Men may call 
me a knhve, or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and 
I am content ; but they shall never, by my con- 
sent, call me a Bishop. For my sake, for God's 
sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this ! 



BISHOP MORRIS. 195 

Let the Presbyterians do what they please but 
let the Methodists know their calling better. 
Thus my dear Frankey, I have told you all that 
is in my heart, and let this, when I am no more 
seen, bear witness how sincerely I am your af- 
fectionate friend and brother, John Wesley." 
This letter of Mr. Wesley, which all admit to 
be genuine, stamps the charge of fraud upon 
Mr. Asbury's minutes, in which he states that 
the Episcopal form of church government was- 
adopted by the consent of Mr. Wesley. We 
now inquire, What authority had Dr. Thos. 
Coke to claim Episcopal dignity for him- 
self, AND TO CONFER THE SAME ON FRANCIS> 
ASBURY ? 

Dr. Thomas Coke was one of Mr. Wesley's 
preachers in England, and had been sent over 
to the United States with Francis Asbury, as 
joint superintendents of the Methodist Societies 
in America. Both were young and ambitious, 
and thirsted for power. Coke was an L.L. D., 
whiie Asbury was a journeyman button maker, 
taken by Mr. Wesley out of a button factory in 
England, and made a preacher. Mr. Wesley, if 
we remember right, bought him a suit of clothes 
and paid his way to America. Dr. Coke had 
returned to England to seek ordination from the 
hands of Mr. Wesley. And August 9th, Mr. 
Wesley being in Wales, on his way to Bristol, 
Dr. Coke addressed him a letter, urging him to 



196 LETTERS TO 

ordain him. McCain, in his 13th letter, describes 
this ordination thus : 

"Before we proceed any further it is proper 
to notice the ordination of Dr. Coke, which took 
place shortly after his letter of Aug. 9, to Mr. 
Wesley. The Rev. James Creighton, in a letter 
addressed to Mr. Samuel Bradburn, printed in 
London, 1793, says : 

" 'You take notice of a meeting which Mr. 
Wesley had with some clergymen at Leeds in 
Aug., 1784, at which he consulted them concern- 
ing the ordination of preachers for America. 
Mr. Fletcher was present, and I believe Mr. 
Selton, and two or three others. They did not 
approve of the scheme, because it seemed incon- 
sistent with Mr. Wesley's former professions 
respecting the church. Upon this the meeting 
was abruptly broken up by Mr. Wesley's going 
out/ 

" Is it not strange, then, that notwithstand- 
ing the opposition of all the clergy, to Mr. Wes- 
ley's scheme of ordaining any for the American 
Societies, it being 'inconsistent with his former 
professions respecting the church,' Dr. Coke's 
ordination should take place in Mr. Wesley's 
chamber in Bristol ? The only clergymen pres- 
ent with Mr. Wesley, were Dr. Coke, and Rev. 
James Creighton. Mr. Wesley ordained Mr. 
Whatcoat and Mr. Vasey, deacons, first, and im- 
mediately afterwards they were ordained elders ; 



BISHOP MORRIS. 197 

and these gentlemen being doubly ordained in a 
trice, turn round and assist Mr. Wesley to or- 
dain Dr. Coke a Bishop for America ! And al- 
though the transaction is without a parallel in 
the history of ordinations, the author of the 
4 defense of our Fathers,' has the impudence to 
affirm that Dr. Coke's ordination was performed 
as ordinations usually are." 

Dr. Whitehead, one of Mr. Wesley's execu- 
tors, in his life of Wesley, says : 

" In direct opposition to the practice of the 
primitive church, the ordinations among the 
Methodists were performed in secret. The peo- 
ple were not assembled ; they were not consult- 
ed ; nor even so much as acquainted that min- 
isters were to be ordained among the Methodists, 
as their proper pastors. The whole was perform- 
ed by an arbitrary power in the exercise of which 
no regard was had to the rights of the people." 

Again, the same writer says : 

44 Mr. Wesley's episcopal authority was a mere 
gratuitous assumption of power to himself, 
contrary to the usage of every church, ancient 
or modern, where the order of bishops has been 
admitted. There is no precedent either in the 
New Testament or in church history, that can 
justify his proceedings in this affair. And as 
Mr. Wesley had received no right to exercise 
episcopal authority, either from any Bishop, 
presbyters, or people, he certainly could not con- 



198 LETTERS TO 

vey any right to others ; his ordinations are 
therefore spurious and of no validity." 

The same author says : " Let us review the 
arguments on this subject reduced to a few 
points. 1st. Mr. Wesley in ordaining, or con- 
secrating Dr. Coke a bishop, acted in direct 
contradiction to the principles on which he at- 
tempts to defend his practice of ordaining at all. 
2d. As Mr. Wesley was never elected or chosen 
by any church to be a bishop, nor even conse- 
crated to the office, either by bishops or presby- 
ters, he had not the shadow of right to exercise 
episcopal authority in ordaining others, accord- 
ing to the rules of any church, ancient or mod- 
ern. 3d. Had he possessed a proper right to 
ordain, either as a bishop or presbyter, (though 
he never did ordain as a presbyter,) yet his or- 
dinations being done in secret, were rendered 
thereby invalid, and of no effect, according to 
the established order of the primitive church, 
and all protestaut churches. 4th. The conse- 
quence from the whole is, that the persons whom 
Mr. Wesley ordained, have no more right to 
exercise the ministerial functions than they had 
before he laid hands upon them." 

Respecting this secret bed-chamber ordina- 
tion of Dr. Coke by Mr. Wesley, Charles Wes- 
ley said : 

" So easily are Bishops made, 
By man's or woman's whim; 
Wesley his hands on Coke hath laid, 
But who laid hands on him ? " 



BISHOP MORRIS. 199 

And concerning Asbury's ordination to the 
Bishop's office by Dr. Coke in Baltimore, Charles 
Wesley says, sarcastically : 

11 A Roman Emperor it's said, 
His favorite horse a consul made; 
But Coke brings greater things to pass, 
He makes a Bishop of an ass." 

Dr. Whitehead, Mr. Wesley's biographer, con- 
cerning these transactions, says : u It has al- 
ready been observed, that a party existed among 
the preachers, who wished the Methodists to be 
erected into an independent body, and a total 
separation to be made from the established 
church. One of this party [Dr. Coke,] was fre- 
quently about Mr. Wesley's person ; and under 
various pretenses sometimes led him into meas- 
ures that offended the people, and embarrassed 
his affairs, while the true author lay concealed, 
as much as possible, behind the scene." 

On this McCain says: "And what means 
did he use to accomplish his plans ? He sup- 
pressed the letter given him by Mr. Wesley as 
the testimonial of the office he was to fill, and 
the work he was to do. This letter he never 
suffered to see the light, nor did it, ur.til after 
his death, when it was published by his execu- 
tor, Mr. Drew. He destroyed the 4 little sketch,' 
which Mr. Wesley tells us he drew up for the 
use of the societies, on the principle, ' a dead 
man tells no tales.' He mutilated the letters 
addressed * to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbuiy, and our 



200 LETTERS TO 

brethren in North America/ dated - Bristol 
Sept. 10th, 1784/ and gave only an extract from 
it. He violated the most sacred injunctions im- 
posed on him by Mr. Wesley. With respect to 
the title of bishop, I know that Mr. Wesley en- 
joined the Doctor and his associates, and in the 
most solemn manner, that it should not be 
taken." 

In a letter to Mrs. Gilbert, the widow of the 
excellent Nathaniel Gilbert, Esq., of Augusta, 
a copy which now lies before me, he states this 
in the strongest manner. u In this, and in every 
deviation, I can not be the apologist of Dr. Coke, 
and I can state in contradiction to all that Dr. 
Whitehead and Mr. Hampson have said, that 
Mr. Wesley never gave his sanction to any of 
these things ; nor was he the author of one line 
of all that Dr. Coke published in America on 
this subject. His views on these points were 
very different from those of his zealous son in 
the gospel. We know that the work of God 
neither needed, nor could be aided, nor could 
recommend itself to pious minds, by such addi- 
tions." — Moors Life of Wesley, Volume II. , 
pages 279, 280. 

But we have given evidence enough to prove 
that Methodist Episcopacy has no validity, but 
was a fraud, palmed off upon the Methodist so- 
cieties in America by Dr. Coke and Francis As- 
bury, the first pretenders to the high office among 



BISHQP MORRIS. 201 

them. And as a stream can never rise above 
its fountain, it follows as a logical sequence, that 
you, my dear Bishop, and all your Episcopal 
brethren, from Mr. Coke down to the present 
time, have been acting upon a mere assumption 
of authority, for which you have no warrant in 
the Bible, nor in fact. 

And even Dr. Coke, your first Bishop, from 
whom all your Episcopal authority is derived,, 
had no confidence in his own ordination, as he 
confessed in his letter to Bishop White, (Pro* 
testant Episcopal Bishop,) from/whom he sought 
ordination afterwards. To establish this, we 
make the following extract from Dr. Coke's let- 
ter to Bishop White, which seems to have been 
written in 1791, a number of years after he had 
ordained Asbury as Bishop. He says : 

" Eight Reverend Sir: Permit me to intrude 
a little on your time, on a subject of great im- 
portance. You, I believe, are conscious that I 
was brought up in the Church of England, and 
have been ordained a presbyter of that church. 
For many years I was prejudiced, even, I think, 
to bigotry, in favor of it; but through a variety 
of causes and incidents, to mention which would 
be tedious and useless, my mind was exceeding- 
ly biased on the other side of the question. In 
consequence of this, I am not sure but I went 
further in the separation of our church in Ameri- 
ca, than Mr. Wesley, from whom I had received 



202 LETTERS TO 

my commission, did intend. He did, indeed, sol- 
emly invest me, as far as he had a right to do 
so, with episcopal authority, but did not intend, 
I think, that our entire separation should take 
place. He being pressed by our friends on this 
side the water, for ministers to administer the 
sacraments to them, (there being very few clergy 
of the Church of England then in the States,) 
he went further, I am sure, than he would have 
gone, if he had foreseen some events which fol- 
lowed. And this I am certain of, that he is now 
sorry for the separation. * * * Our 
ordained ministers will not, ought not to give up 
their right to administer the sacraments. I don't 
think that the generality of them, perhaps none 
of them, would refuse to submit to a re-ordina- 
tion, if other hinderances were removed out of 
the way." 

Not being successful with Bishop White, he 
next addressed the Bishop of London in the 
same strain. He commences his letter by saying : 

" May it please your Lordship : I have felt 
strong inclination for more than twelve months 
past, to take the liberty of writing to your Lord- 
ship on a subject which appears to me of vast 
importance ; I mean the necessity of securing 
the great body of Methodists in connexion with 
the late Rev. John Wesley to the Church of 
England." And further on in this letter he 
says: "I am inclined to think, that if a given 



BISHOP MORRIS. 203 

number of our leading preachers, proposed by 
our General Conference, were to be ordained, 
and permitted to travel through our connexion 
to administer the sacraments to those societies 
who have been thus prejudiced, as above, every 
difficulty would be removed," &c, &c. 

But the Doctor was unsuccessful again. It 
seemed that neither Bishop White, of Philadel- 
phia, nor the Bishop of London, had any con- 
fidence in the man, and therefore treated him 
with contempt. 

We next find him seeking ordination from the 
State through Lord Liverpool and Wm. Wilber- 
force, and promising to cheerfully renounce all 
connexion with the Methodists, if the Prince Re- 
gent would make him Bishop for India. 

But this letter has already grown far beyond 
the limits we had proposed, and therefore we 
now close it. We have dealt candidly and faith- 
fully with your Episcopacy, and we think have 
demonstrated, by good Methodist authority, our 
main proposition that " Methodist Episcopacy " 
was a fraud upon the Methodist societies in 
America, and therefore has no validity. I beg 
of you, my dear Bishop, that you will give this 
subject due attention, and in the language of Mr. 
Wesley to Mr. Asbury, u let there be a full end 
of this thing.' 1 Tell all the Bishops of your 
church, before you leave them, that their Epis- 
copal dignity is a monstrous assumption^ resting 



204 LETTERS TO 

upon a fraud as a foundation, and having no* 
other. As honest men, they should imitate Mr. 
Wesley, and." study to be little,'* 

The Lord bless all who love the truth and 
walk in it. 

Very Truly Yours, 

J. M. Mathes- 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces: 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologia 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIO 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



m^ 



